759 F.2d 1032 (2d Cir. 1985)
New York v. Shore Realty Corp.
Are current owners and corporate officers/operators strictly liable under CERCLA § 107(a) for state-incurred response costs when they did not themselves dispose of hazardous substances, and may a state obtain injunctive relief compelling abatement under CERCLA or RCRA in these circumstances?
Under CERCLA § 107(a)(1)–(4), four classes of potentially responsible parties (PRPs) are strictly liable for "all costs of removal or remedial action" incurred by the United States, a state, or an Indian tribe consistent with the National Contingency Plan: (1) current owners and operators of a facility; (2) past owners and operators at the time of disposal; (3) arrangers; and (4) certain transporters. Liability is subject only to the limited defenses in § 107(b) (act of God, act of war, or act/omission of a third party with due care and without contractual relationship). Causation by the particular defendant is not an element of liability for current owners under § 107(a)(1). Corporate officers may be individually liable as "operators" if they have authority to control and actively participate in the facility's operations related to hazardous substances. CERCLA § 107(a) authorizes cost recovery but does not, by itself, confer injunctive relief on state plaintiffs; injunctive authority resides in CERCLA § 106 for the United States. RCRA's imminent hazard provision (42 U.S.C. § 6973) authorizes injunctive relief to abate conditions that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment.
The Second Circuit held that (1) Shore Realty, as the current owner of the facility, is strictly liable under CERCLA § 107(a)(1) for the State's response costs, notwithstanding that it did not itself dispose of the hazardous substances; (2) the corporate officer with authority to control site operations may be individually liable as an "operator" under CERCLA; (3) injunctive relief to abate the imminent hazard is available under RCRA's imminent hazard provision and state public nuisance law, but not under CERCLA § 107(a); and (4) joint and several liability applies absent a reasonable basis to apportion the harm.
Shore Realty is a cornerstone of environmental law teaching and practice. It cements that current owners are strictly liable under CERCLA for response costs, even when they did not cause the contamination, and confirms that corporate officers with control over hazardous operations can face personal liability as "operators." The case also delineates the remedial landscape: cost recovery under CERCLA versus injunctive abatement under RCRA and state nuisance. Finally, it underscores the narrowness of CERCLA's defenses and the judiciary's willingness to impose joint and several liability absent a clear basis for apportionment, all in service of rapid and effective cleanup of hazardous sites.