## Facts

- A chemical manufacturer generated industrial wastes (including solvents and sludges) and, from the 1950s through the mid-1960s, used an independent contractor’s private disposal site in Rensselaer County, New York.
- The contractor disposed of the wastes in lagoons or pits on his property; other companies also used the site.
- Years later, contaminants allegedly migrated from the site into surrounding soil and water, including groundwater used as a potable supply for thousands of residents.
- The State alleged threats to public health and contamination affecting air, land, surface water, and groundwater.
- The State sought injunctive relief, abatement of an asserted public nuisance, and reimbursement for remedial investigation and cleanup costs.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint stated actionable claims under New York environmental statutes where dumping ended decades earlier and later contamination resulted from passive migration.
2. Whether the State’s public-nuisance claim was time-barred or could proceed as a continuing public nuisance with ongoing injury to public rights.
3. Whether the waste generator could face nuisance-based and related common-law liability notwithstanding that disposal was performed by an independent contractor.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to dismiss as to certain statutory causes of action, finding the pleaded facts did not show a continuing statutory “discharge” by the generator after disposal ceased.
- The court denied the motion to dismiss the public-nuisance and related common-law claims, concluding the allegations described a continuing public nuisance and were not barred by limitations.
- The court held the pleadings were sufficient to pursue liability theories against the generator despite the independent-contractor relationship, including allegations that the generator knew or should have known the risks and entrusted hazardous wastes to an incompetent contractor.
- The case proceeded on the surviving common-law claims, leaving open the possibility of injunctive relief and recovery of remedial costs as damages if liability were proven.

## Legal Principles

- Passive, gradual migration of previously dumped contaminants is not necessarily a “continuing discharge” for statutes aimed at active discharges or emissions; absent allegations of ongoing affirmative conduct, certain statutory claims may fail at the pleading stage.
- Environmental contamination affecting public resources and health may constitute a continuing public nuisance; for a continuing nuisance, a new claim may accrue while the condition persists, defeating a limitations defense tied solely to the original dumping.
- A waste generator may face potential common-law liability even when an independent contractor performed disposal, particularly where the materials are hazardous and the generator allegedly knew or should have known improper disposal posed serious risks.
- Remedial investigation and cleanup expenses may be sought as damages under common-law nuisance where statutory cost-recovery theories are unavailable or inadequately pleaded.

## Conclusion

The court treated decades-old dumping differently under statute and common law: it dismissed statutory pollution-discharge claims premised on later passive migration, but allowed the State to pursue continuing public nuisance and related common-law theories, including potential liability for the waste generator despite the use of an independent contractor.


New York v. Schenectady Chems., Inc., 459 N.Y.S.2d 971 (Sup. Ct. Rensselaer Cnty. 1983)