Toxic Environmental Substances
The introduction of complex chemicals into the environment often raises legal issues as unique as the substances themselves. Toxic tort litigation examines whether exposure to a particular material can cause, and did, in fact, cause personal injury or property damage for which the disseminator should be held accountable. Exposures can occur in and around the home, workplace, commercial establishments and in the ambient environment. Childhood lead poisoning, indoor air pollution, contact with asbestos, mold spores, pesticides, solvents and other irritants, and environmental contamination are just a few of the many sub-topics within the field of toxic tort litigation.
Lead-Based Paint
In the typical lead poisoning lawsuit, a parent alleges that his/her child has been harmed from ingestion or inhalation of residential paint containing the now-banned additive, and that the landlord (and often the managing agent), should be held liable. A hybrid between toxic tort and premises litigation, these cases implicate very distinct issues. Unlike other substances (asbestos, for example), exposure to lead-based paint does not produce a "signature" injury, i.e., a harm which is characteristic of or which can only be caused by that element. Therefore, while plaintiffs complain of intellectual and attention deficits, hyperactivity, behavioral disorders and an amalgam of other actual and potential ailments, defendants argue that other risk factors, such as familial, social, hereditary and environmental conditions, are responsible for the child's physical and psychological profile.
Although lead poisoning claims are most common in the boroughs of New York City where older apartment buildings are prevalent, there is a fair amount of such litigation in Nassau and Suffolk counties. In these locales, the injured party must establish that at the relevant time: a) the premises was not reasonably safe; b) the owner or his agent had actual knowledge of a defective lead-based paint condition or that the condition was both visible and apparent and had existed for a sufficient period of time prior to the exposure; c) the owner or his agent was negligent in not maintaining the property in a reasonably safe condition, and; d) that negligence was a substantial factor in causing the alleged injury.
In 2004, the New York City Council adopted the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act of 2003, placing the onus on the owner of multiple dwellings (erected either before 1960 or between 1960 and 1978 in which the owner knows there is lead-based paint), to investigate apartments for lead-based paint hazards "on a case-by-case basis as the conditions may warrant," and "to take such actions as are necessary to prevent children from becoming lead poisoned." An owner must inspect apartments "at least once a year, and more if necessary", such as when, in the exercise of reasonable care, he has actual or constructive knowledge of a condition reasonably foreseeable to cause a hazard, if a tenant complains about an apartment's condition, or if the Department of Health (“DOH”) issues an Order to Abate a Nuisance. The landlord must include a conspicuous notice in English and Spanish in every lease, which notice advises tenants of each party's obligations, and a questionnaire as to the presence of children under the specified age. The law requires tenants to report the presence of children at all times during the lease period and to give the owner access to the unit. Finally, the law expands the definition of "lead" to includes "lead contaminated dust," and "chewable" (i.e., protruding and readily accessible), "deteriorated," "peeling," "friction" and "impact" surfaces as potential "lead-based-paint hazards."
The 2004 law has invigorated litigation in New York City, and the increased attention has stepped-up claims in Nassau and Suffolk counties, notwithstanding the paucity of available insurance coverage. Whether residential lead poisoning lawsuits are tried or settled depends largely upon how counsel assesses the potential jury's likely perception of the parties. Will jurors believe: 1) that the resident was truthful in reporting the child's presence to the owner, and reasonable in giving him access to inspect and correct adverse conditions; 2) that the landlord acted with sufficient diligence in inspecting and remediating the subject apartment prior to receiving notification of a lead violation, and; 3) that the adult plaintiff is truthful in his description of the exposure and identification of other possible lead sources? While results still vary county to county (with Richmond, Nassau and Suffolk being more favorable to defendants and Kings and the Bronx preferable for plaintiffs), the defense practitioner often has the daunting task of persuading a jury that the landlord is an attentive property owner who has acted within the parameters of what the law recognizes as "reasonable" and that his conduct or failure to act did not cause this particular child to suffer harm. At the same time, plaintiffs' counsel must convince jurors that his young client was indeed harmed by his/her exposure in a lead-contaminated apartment and not by other environmental factors. Whichever side of the controversy you are on, you must engage attorneys who can make the critical calls, evaluations and recommendations, who know how to prepare clients and witnesses to make their best appearance at trial, and who are not afraid to try their cases when settlement attempts fail.
Mold
Lawsuits involving mold contamination have been termed the "asbestos of the new millennium." Mold is a ubiquitous substance, most types of which are harmless. A few species have been implicated in symptoms such as runny noses, eye irritation, nasal and chest congestion, wheezing, aggravation of asthma and allergies, headaches, dizziness and fatigue. In severe exposures, the substance has been linked to bloody discharges, fibrous lung growths, pulmonary hemorrhages, cognitive dysfunction, memory loss and irritability.
There are no federal or state standards that define acceptable levels of exposure to mold. Federal agencies which deal with air quality issues like the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”), and the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”), believe that toxic mold may start to grow and spread in as little as 24 hours after a building sustains water damage, assuming a favorable combination of temperature, moisture, and a food source, such as sheet rock. Mold usually grows because of excessive moisture due to construction defects, leaking windows and pipes, and poorly designed HVAC systems. Personal injury & property damage claims are therefore most prevalent in geographic areas that are humid and damp year-round (e.g., California, Texas and Florida), but allegations of deleterious exposure abound in the State of New York as well, and particularly in areas of Nassau and Suffolk counties that are on or near the water.
In 1993, the New York City DOH’s Bureau of Environmental and Occupational Disease Epidemiology, the New York City Human Resources Administration, and the Mount Sinai Occupational Health Clinic commissioned a number of experts to study the mold problem. The panel's 1994 report entitled "Guidelines on Assessment and Remediation of Stachybotrys Atra in Indoor Environments" (and the April 2000 update) related the aforementioned symptoms to exposure to mold (and fungi), and suggested methods for medical and environmental assessment (inspection, sampling, air monitoring), remediation and decontamination. In particular, these experts concluded that since it is impossible to ascertain safe/unsafe levels of exposure for people with varying degrees of susceptibility, it is essential to address the presence of mold, water damage and musty odors "immediately," to remove persons at risk from affected areas, and to excise sufficient building material to insure eradication of all molds.
Individuals who believe they have been injured by exposure to mold must consider their ability to prove a causal connection between their exposure and their injury. Because of the unique manner in which the statute of limitations (i.e. the amount of time within which one must sue), applies to toxic exposure cases, prospective plaintiffs must move quickly to investigate their claims. An experienced law firm such as KLA will recommend doctors who can recognize the physical manifestations and determine whether symptoms are related to mold, and environmental hygienists who can best test the offensive atmosphere.
Landlords and insurance companies facing such claims must analyze all environmental factors and potential effects of water saturation when performing an exposure analysis and in evaluating the potential extent of damages and the costs of repair. In instances of covered water damage claims, time is particularly "of the essence." If the landowners can attribute the presence of mold to a covered loss, the insurance company's claims adjuster should engage a contractor and include removal and repair as part of that loss. An immediate and thorough response will allow the adjuster to determine if the mold pre-existed the water damage and, therefore, whether a basis to disclaim exists. Prompt commencement of a drying out and clean-up process will help to reduce further damage to property and person. The longer the carrier waits, the harder it will be to posit that the mold was not caused by a covered loss and the harder it may be to defend the underlying personal injury lawsuit.
Asbestos
Asbestos is a group of minerals with long, thin fibrous crystals. It became increasingly popular among manufacturers and builders in the late 19th Century due to its resistance to heat, fire, electricity and chemical damage, its sound absorption, and its insulating properties, tensile strength and flexibility. When asbestos is used near fire or heat, the fibers are often mixed with cement or woven into fabric or mats. For all of the aforementioned properties, asbestos is used in brake shoes and gaskets, and was used on electric oven and hotplate wiring and in the construction industry.
The inhalation of asbestos fibers can cause serious illnesses, including lung cancer, mesothelioma (a rare malignant cancer that attacks the protective sac that covers most of the body's internal organs), and asbestosis (a chronic inflammatory condition that affects the functional tissue of the lungs.) While many uses of asbestos have been banned in a number of countries, personal injury and property damage litigation against manufacturers and companies that used asbestos as insulation in other products (heating devices, ductwork, construction components, etc.) abounds. This is true because of the extremely long latency period, i.e, the time between exposure to asbestos and the development of symptomology.
While Long Island has its economic roots in agriculture, the amount of available land made the construction of power stations that could service New York City (including nuclear plants), and the production of history-making aircraft attractive and feasible. Post-war development converted Nassau and Suffolk counties into an enormous industrial suburb of New York City, with the concomitant need for mass transportation. Asbestos was frequently used to insulate water, steam and electrical fixtures and pipes, as well as airplane and railroad components. Individuals employed in these industries may have been exposed to asbestos fibers, and need to monitor their respiratory health closely and perennially, and to discuss any abnormal symptoms with their physician.
In this area of litigation, injured parties characteristically sue the manufacturers and distributors of asbestos and also the end-products (such as boilers and brake systems) in which the substance has been used. Because of the sheer volume of cases pending in New York and New Jersey, asbestos litigation is handled on an entirely different track, with different procedures and methods of resolution than any other toxic exposure case. KLA's experienced attorneys are extremely familiar not only with these procedures, but with the science and law that exposure to asbestos implicates.
Indoor Air Pollution
The drive to save money and conserve energy in the 1970's yielded certain design choices and construction approaches which caused or contributed to concerns about internal air quality (“IAQ”). Some examples are the construction of "tight" buildings, the use of petroleum-based products, water-proofing materials, particleboard and other wood products that may out-gas formaldehyde, and the installation of carpeting, computers, copiers and blue print machines which may release volatile organic compounds (“VOC’s”) like methane, benzene, xylene, toluene, trichloroethylene and acetone.
There are literally thousands of pollutants in interior environments where exposures are two to five times higher than outside. For these reasons, the EPA has identified indoor air pollution as among the top five environmental risks to public health. The EPA has estimated that out of approximately 4.5 million office and public buildings in the United States, 30% (1.3 million), experience IAQ problems, most of which are related to inadequate ventilation. The EPA has also approximated that in excess of 100,000,000 Americans are at potential risk, although more recently, experts have estimated the number at 30-70 million.
IAQ litigation involves allegations that the ambient air within the work place or home is contaminated with biological/chemical irritants that have caused physical and/or psychological harm, such as multiple chemical sensitivity (“MCS”) and “sick building syndrome (“SBS”). While these claims have been around for many years, increased scientific focus, the development of sophisticated investigation, measurement and industrial hygiene techniques, media coverage, legislative response and general public awareness and anxiety (not necessarily in that order of importance), have generated a massive number of indoor air pollution cases in New York city and Nassau and Suffolk counties.
Many commonly asserted theories and defenses in this type of litigation derive from the product liability and negligence context. Because of the nature and duration of the exposures, however, they apply differently and often have interesting consequences. Whether you are prosecuting or defending IAQ litigation, you must utilize a law firm with the expertise to address these issues.
Pesticides, Solvents and Household Chemicals
Even at low levels, exposure to pesticides, solvents and household chemicals can pose acute and chronic health risks, such as cancers, infertility, birth defects and neurological damage. Those who mix, load or apply pesticides and those who work with solvents in an industrial setting or in the home can be exposed through spills, splashes, direct spray or drift, or because of defective, missing or inadequate protective equipment. Families can be injured when children play in treated areas, and when workers inadvertently transport residues on their hair, skin or clothing.
Many cases of illness are not easily recognized because the symptoms (e.g., nausea, vomiting, dizziness, headache, skin rashes and eye irritation), are common to numerous ailments, and cases that are correctly diagnosed are often not reported. Recognizing exposure-related illness is also difficult because there are few inexpensive and widely available clinical diagnostic tests for identifying acute poisoning, and people often cannot identify the chemical culprit(s).
One pesticide ingredient, 2,4-D, is found in commercially-available lawn herbicides such as "Weed B Gon MAX", "PAR III", "Trillion", "Tri-Kil", "Killex" and "Weedaway Premium 3-Way XP Turf Herbicide." 2,4-D is the third-most widely used herbicide in North America and the most widely used weed killer in the world. Combined with the compound 2,4,5-T, this ingredient comprised the powerful defoliant and herbicide that the United States government used extensively throughout the Vietnam War (approximately 20 million gallons between 1962 and 1971) known as Agent Orange (named for the color of the stripe on its barrel).
Agent Orange has been associated with nervous system disorders, dermatological conditions, soft-tissue sarcomas, Hodgkin's disease, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia, among other diseases. At least one study has shown a relationship between exposure to Agent Orange and diabetes. And as recently as August 2008, the University of California at Davis Cancer Center released results of research showing for the first time that Vietnam War veterans exposed to Agent Orange have greatly increased risks of prostate cancer and even greater risks of getting the most aggressive form of that disease as compared to those who were not exposed.
The controversy relating to Agent Orange was largely associated with TCDD, a dioxin by-product of the 2,4,5-T component. In 1997, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (“IARC”), re-designated TCDD as a “Group 1 carcinogen”, a classification that includes arsenic, asbestos and gamma radiation. But DCDD, a dioxin by-product of 2,4-D, may be just as toxic to certain human systems and organs as TCDD. To this day, the EPA does not regulate or monitor DCDD, although ambient levels could be much higher than TCDD. DCDD and other components of 2,4-D are suspected endocrine disrupters, carcinogens, and liver toxins. While the product is not currently approved for use on lawns and gardens in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Kuwait and the Canadian province of Québec, the United States EPA approved the continued use of 2,4-D in 2005.
With regard to household chemicals and solvents, a recent University of Washington study identified nearly 100 volatile organic compounds in six laundry and air freshening products; five of the six products emitted one or more air pollutants which the EPA considers hazardous, carcinogenic, and unsafe at any level of exposure. The chemicals include acetone (the active ingredient in paint thinner and nail-polish remover), limonene (a molecule that emits a citrus scent), acetaldehyde, chloromethane, and 1,4-dioxane. Indeed, the study found that one plug-in air freshener contained more than 20 different VOC’s, seven of which are regulated as toxic or hazardous under federal law. Additionally, organic solvents (like those found in paints, printing and dry-cleaning agents), have been implicated in central nervous system depression (memory loss, attention and psychomotor dysfunction, cognitive impairment), and various types of cancer, including non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Manufacturers are not required to list the ingredients contained in laundry products and air freshener ingredients. While the FDA requires that cosmetics specify its ingredients, it does not mandate that fragrances identify components like limonene, and a number of personal-care products and cleaners often contain these fragrance chemicals.
In the summer of 2008, Nassau County authorized the aerial spraying of “Scourge”, a pesticide containing a component used indoors and on pets to control ticks, fleas and ants. While the County reported that the “chance of experiencing any health effects from the use of Scourge to control mosquitoes is quite low,” the municipality recommended that residents limit their exposure and acknowledged that particularly sensitive individuals may experience short-term effects such as eye, skin, nose or throat irritation and/or breathing problems.
The pervasive use of chemicals and the inconsistent manner in which their manufacture, labeling and sale are regulated has spawned an abundance of litigation. Whether suits take the form of individuals against manufacturers and distributors or mass tort Agent Orange-type cases, injured parties and the companies they seek to hold responsible need to retain counsel specifically competent and experienced in this area of the law, like the attorneys of KLA.
Environmental Contamination
Environmental contamination has been a “hot button” topic in the regulatory, legislative, political and judicial arenas since the 1960’s. In 1962, Rachel Carson, authored “Silent Spring”, in which the biologist challenged the practices of agricultural scientists and the government, particularly with regard to the aerial spraying of dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (“DDT”) and other pesticides. Finding support among professionals who were documenting the physiological and environmental effects of pesticides, and taking advantage of her own government contacts, Ms. Carson took it upon herself to warn the public about the long term effects of misusing pesticides. Ms. Carson testified before Congress in 1963 and called for new policies to protect human health and the environment. Attacked for the next several decades by the chemical industry and some in government, “Silent Spring” brought environmental concerns to an unprecedented number of people, spawned sweeping changes in national pesticide policy, lead to a nationwide ban on DDT and other pesticides, and ultimately, inspired the creation of the EPA. At about the same time, a group of landowners in Nassau and Suffolk counties filed suit to have pesticide spraying stopped, and though they lost, the United States Supreme Court granted them the right to seek injunctions against potential environmental damage, thus laying the foundation for future litigation.
In the late 80’s/early 90’s, concerns were voiced that environmental contaminants were responsible for an increased incidence of breast cancer deaths and new cases on Long Island. Some estimates characterized this increase over the national average as “slightly elevated”, while others, as 30%. Although the CDC attributed breast cancer rates on Long Island to heredity and other known risk factors, Congress ordered a study in 1993. The Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project (“LIBCSP”) began as a multi-study effort to investigate this suspected phenomenon in Suffolk and Nassau counties, among a few others.
Coordinated with the National Cancer Institute and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and costing at least $8 million, the study examined whether organo-chlorine pesticides (including DDT, polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCB’s”), dieldrin, and chlordane), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (“PAH’s”), a ubiquitous class of pollutants that results from incomplete combustion of various chemicals including diesel fuel and cigarette smoke, are associated with an enhanced risk for breast cancer among women on Long Island.
The researchers found and reported in 2002 that organo-chlorine compounds are not associated with the elevated rates of breast cancer on Long Island. However, the researchers stated that it is possible that breast cancer risk in some individuals may be associated with organo-chlorine exposures because of individual differences in metabolism and ability to repair DNA damage, and they are continuing to investigate these possibilities. The researchers also found that exposure to PAH’s was associated with a modest increased risk for breast cancer. Critics posit that the study simply reaffirmed many of the established risk factors, such as a family history, late-age child birth, never giving birth, and/or doing little or no breast-feeding. Despite the study’s findings, the investigation into the possible relationship between pesticides and slightly elevated breast cancer rates on Long Island has yielded additional focus by scientists, activists and the legal community.
Potable Water
The 1996 Amendments to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act placed a strong emphasis on the protection of surface and ground water sources used for public drinking water. As a result, each state’s health department has had to develop a Source Water Assessment Program (“SWAP”) to evaluate the sources of water that public drinking systems use. In developing its SWAP, the New York State Department of Health gathered extensive input from many public and private interests, and the US EPA approved it in November 1999.
Long Island relies on ground water as a source of drinking water and the system is classified as a “sole-source aquifer.” In Nassau and Suffolk counties, there are over 500 public water systems that rely on more than 1,500 ground water source wells. Regional aquifer systems on Long Island have been extensively investigated and assessed; extensive ground water resource management and protection efforts have evolved related to Long Island's unique regional setting and hydro-geological characteristics. The New York State DOH has worked with the Nassau and Suffolk County Health Departments and other interested parties and contractors to complete source water assessments and develop approaches that are specific and appropriate for Long Island.
MTBE
Methyl tertiary butyl ether (“MTBE”) is a water-soluble gasoline additive that diffuses in water more easily than any other fuel component. When the chemical leaks into aquifers, it moves into tap water, and when present in sufficient quantity, it can create an unpleasant taste and smell. Many scientists suspect that the health ramifications range from sore throats and body aches to cancer and death.
Gas station owners and attendants are often careless when handling fuel, they refuse to investigate, or they deny responsibility even when spills are identified. In New York State, the Department of Environmental Conservation must engage private contractors to investigate the extent of the contaminations and to clean them. Often, it is difficult to determine which gas station caused a leak, making legal action against guilty parties difficult.
Because spills at gas stations and leaks from underground storage tanks (“UST’s”) have become a widespread problem, the use of MTBE as a fossil fuel has been reduced and in many states, prohibited. Although the chemical was banned in New York in 2004, old spills are still being discovered and there have been instances of illegal use by gas stations.
Since the 1970s, Long Island has had many instances of the gasoline additive leaking into drinking water as a result of irresponsible practices by gas station owners and attendants. In February 2008, 32 old MTBE spills were discovered in the Town of Hempstead, County of Nassau, New York, at least two of which did not meet cleanup standards.
MTBE is difficult and expensive to remove from water, and taxpayers often end up paying the price; such efforts at the recently detected sites in Nassau County cost an estimated $2.5 million. Long Island has had 24 percent of the state's total spills, more than any region in the state, and has had the highest quantities of the chemical per spill. These spills have the capacity to affect the drinking water of approximately 2.7 million Long Island residents, particularly in Nassau County. While water in Nassau and Suffolk counties is tested multiple times per year, MTBE contamination is still a threat where the chemical has infiltrated the aquifer in between inspections.
Brownfields
Brownfields are developed sites that are now contaminated with chemical waste and other hazardous materials and require extensive cleanup if they are ever to be re-utilized. Cleaning up a Brownfield property can be as simple as excavating contaminated soil for disposal off-site or as intricate as conducting extensive ground water treatment.
There are approximately 7,000 potential Brownfield sites in Nassau and Suffolk counties, former gas stations being the most common, followed by dry cleaners and shuttered industrial buildings where testing or manufacturing once took place.
Brownfields on Long Island share some unique characteristics: 1) since Nassau and Suffolk residents obtain drinking water from underground aquifers, cleaning each site is more arduous due to costly remediation efforts, and; 2) the majority of these sites are less than two acres. It is estimated that at the current rate of redevelopment in New York State, it will take 486 years for to clean up and redevelop all of the Brownfields in Nassau and Suffolk counties.
Contaminated site revitalization has become an important economic initiative that utilizes federal and/or state funds and private sector investment. Because of the legal and technical complexities of developing sites with environmental contamination, local governments have difficulty marshalling the resources to tap available grant money and manage projects. Private developers may not devote the dollars and the years to nurture projects where the return on their investment is low and the timelines are long. Additionally, in some locales, the general public is mistrustful of both government and the development community when it comes to environmental cleanups. Accordingly, sites with weak economic potential are often left in a blighted state.
Another problem that is exclusive to Long Island is securing money from the state's Brownfield Cleanup Program. This has always been a daunting task, as nearly $1 billion in tax benefits from the state program have eluded Nassau and Suffolk counties since 2003, according to a Department of Environmental Conservation survey of sites. Large New York City developers with relatively little onsite contamination applied for big benefits through 2003’s New York State Brownfield Act, and Long Island property owners were thwarted in their efforts to clean up contaminated land. This is quite unfortunate since $45 million of BOA program funds were left unspent in the last three years.
In late 2007/early 2008, the New York State Senate proposed slashing $10 million from the $12.75 million budget of the Brownfields Opportunity Area (“BOA”) program, which has supplied money for identifying and grouping sites in several Long Island communities. State Senator Carl Marcellino, whose district straddles Nassau and Suffolk counties, opposed the effort to rein in the program and sponsored legislation that would broaden the definition of a Brownfields parcel. “The program is not only the state’s best environmental program, it is also its best economic development program,” Marcellino said. “Cleaned up sites generate local and state tax revenue, create jobs and revitalize communities,” he added.
Because of such and similar input, the New York State Senate and Assembly unanimously adopted legislation in 2008 which would allow all previously under-served, blighted areas in inner cities across the state to receive badly needed aid and attention, and to encourage remediation and new building on sites once thought to be vast environmental wastelands. The legislation which Governor Patterson signed into law on July 23, 2008 also brought much needed streamlining to the BOA program by placing it under the auspices of the Department of State. The legislation, however, does not address contaminated historic sites fill sites that have been excluded from the Brownfield Cleanup Program, a disqualification that disproportionately impacts urban low income and minority neighborhoods, many of which were built on contaminated fill materials. Recent court decisions that limit the Department of Environmental Conservation’s (“DEC’s”) discretion to deny entry of projects in the Brownfields Cleanup Program have increased pressure on the DEC to develop a mechanism for including some historic fill sites in the program.
There are major Brownfields cleanups already underway on Long Island under the Brownfields Re-Development Program: the contaminated parcels along Glen Cove Creek in Glen Cove in preparation for a proposed mix-use project along the city's waterfront; a 10-acre remediation on the Long Beach’s waterfront, the former site of a solid waste incinerator, a pistol range and gas holding tanks for mixed-use development with residential towers, retail and a new boardwalk; 20 tainted properties in the Town of Oyster Bay along the Route 107 corridor, including the former home of the Hooker Chemical Company; an EPA Superfund site; the Republic Long Island Rail Road station; the Coes Neck site in Baldwin, and the Nassau University Medical Center/Roosevelt Health Center in Roosevelt.
In November 2008, Governor and Secretary of State Lorraine Cortés-Vázquez announced the Brownfields Smart Growth Spotlight Communities Initiative to link local communities participating in the BOA Program with the Governor's Smart Growth Cabinet, the purpose being to redevelop Brownfields and simultaneously achieve neighborhood revitalization and smart growth objectives. The Initiative will start by addressing the needs and revitalization objectives of areas affected by Brownfields, most notably Wyandanch, in the Town of Babylon, Suffolk County. Babylon Supervisor Steve Bellone supported this initiative, noting that “[it] will ultimately translate to jobs, economic investment, and spur public private partnerships. I applaud Governor David A. Paterson and Secretary of State Lorraine Cortes-Vazquez for their forward thinking response and their recognition of the importance of an effective and holistic Brownfield program."
KLA represents businesses, developers, property managers and individuals on a wide variety of environmental issues. We consult on the clean-up and re-development of contaminated property, and the management, handling and disposal of petroleum and other solid and liquid wastes; assist clients in navigating the complex regulations governing the registration, maintenance and operation of underground storage tanks; defend potentially responsible parties (“PRP’s”), in enforcement matters brought by federal, state and local agencies; negotiate hazardous substance remediation agreements in tandem with engineers and hydro-geologists; prosecute and defend property damage litigation and private cost recovery actions pursuant to
Superfund, and;
defend the targets of criminal investigation and prosecutions. Additionally, we “cross-represent” clients in the environmental aspects of real estate and corporate transactions.