On Tuesday, Next Millennium Realty LLC and 101 Frost Street Associates, L.P. filed a complaint in the Eastern District of New York against Utility Manufacturing Co., Inc. and Nest Equities, Inc. alleging violations of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
According to the complaint, Next Millennium is a New York limited liability company and the current owner of the property located at 89 Frost Street, Westbury, New York, and 101 Frost Street is a New York limited partnership and the current owner of the property located at 101 Frost Street, also in Westbury. The complaint further states that Utility Manufacturing and Nest Equities are New York corporations and the current or former owners of the property located at 700 Main Street, a third property in Westbury.
The complaint states that on March 22, 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) that gave notice to the parties in this action that they were responsible under the CERCLA for Tetrachloroethylene contamination, also known as PCE, that affected areas in Nassau County, New York starting in September 2011. Further, the complaint states that the UAO found that the parties were using and disposing of PCE at their respective properties in Westbury, New York.
The plaintiffs state that the UAO and its subsequent amendments ordered the parties to implement remedial measures and investigations to clean up and mitigate the contamination caused by their use and disposal of PCE. Further, the complaint states that the UAO stated that the parties are jointly and severally liable for the remedial measures and response costs including engineering fees, attorneys’ fees and other expenses and costs relating to mitigating environmental harm and clean up of the contaminated area.
The plaintiffs state that they have incurred significant response costs by implementing the orders in the UAO, but the defendants have failed to incur any response costs or share in the incurrence of the response cost in implementing the UAO. The plaintiffs argue that the defendants, as responsible parties under CERCLA, are liable for their share of the costs to clean up and remedy the environmental harms at the contaminated area.
Accordingly, the plaintiffs filed the present action under the CERCLA for cost recovery and contribution and seek declaratory and injunctive relief, common law indemnification and restitution. The plaintiffs are represented by Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP.
