Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • U
  • United States v. A & N CleanersUnited States v. A & N Cleaners
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

United States v. A & N Cleaners

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
854 F. Supp. 229 (1994)


Facts

Jordan Berkman, John Petrillo, and Joseph and Mario Curto (defendants) purchased a parcel of property on March 2, 1979. Prior to the purchase, A & N Cleaners (defendant) operated a dry-cleaning business on the property. Berkman, Petrillo, and the Curtos continued to lease the property to A & N Cleaners after purchasing the property. A & N Cleaners generated two types of waste from its operations: dryer condensate and ironing-machine condensate. Until approximately March 1, 1979, A & N Cleaners disposed of both forms of waste by dumping it into a floor drain, which emptied into a dry well under the property. In 1978, hazardous waste was discovered in a nearby well field that supplied water to the community. The waste included volatile halogenated organic compounds, which are present in dry-cleaning waste. The discovery of the contamination was announced in the local newspapers, and the health department issued an advisory recommending that water from the well field be boiled. On March 1, 1979, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) sent a letter to A & N Cleaners disapproving of the current disposal practices. A & N Cleaners had stopped dumping dryer condensate down the floor drain before receiving this letter. However, A & N Cleaners continued to dump the ironing-machine condensate down the floor drain. In December 1979, Berkman signed an access agreement giving environmental agencies permission to come onto the property to determine the source of contamination of the well field. However, Berkman, Petrillo, and the Curtos took no action to learn about the waste-disposal practices of A & N Cleaners. The United States sued Berkman, Petrillo, the Curtos, and A & N Cleaners under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), seeking to recover costs incurred for cleaning up the well field due to the contamination from the dry-cleaning business.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Sweet, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 449,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 449,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers


Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial