Before the close of 2019, the Appellate Division held that NJDEP can enforce the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act (Spill Act) in municipal courts
Before the close of 2019, the Appellate Division held that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) can enforce the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act (Spill Act) in municipal courts. The ruling in New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. Alsol Corporation is significant given that the NJDEP is increasingly seeking to enforce Spill Act penalties in the municipal courts.
New Jersey Spill Act
The Spill Act provides that “any person who has discharged a hazardous substance, or is in any way responsible for any hazardous substance, shall be strictly liable, jointly and severally, without regard to fault, for all cleanup and removal costs no matter by whom incurred.” The statute, N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11f(a)(2)(a), also authorizes a private cause of action by a responsible party for contribution from other responsible parties.
Of particular relevance to the Appellate Division decision, the Spill Act provides that any person who violates a provision of the Spill Act or who fails to pay a civil administrative penalty will be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $50,000 per day for each violation and that “any penalty incurred under this subsection may be recovered with costs in a summary proceeding… in the Superior Court or a municipal court.” The Spill Act further provides that the “Superior Court and the municipal courts shall have jurisdiction to impose a civil penalty for a violation…in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Penalty Enforcement Law of 1999.”
Facts of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. Alsol Corporation
The NJDEP filed a complaint against Alsol Corporation (Alsol) in the Milltown Municipal Court, using the “Special Form of Complaint and Summons” prescribed by the Administrative Director of the Courts, for failure to remediate a property.
When the matter came before the Milltown Municipal Court, Alsol moved to dismiss the summons for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Alsol argued that municipal courts do not have the authority to adjudicate the merits of an enforcement action brought by the DEP involving alleged violations of the Spill Act.
The municipal court judge concluded that N.J.S.A. 58:10- 23.11u(d) only confers municipal courts with jurisdiction to enforce civil penalties “where a finding of liability has already been adjudicated.” The municipal court judge also rejected the DEP’s interpretation of N.J.S.A. 58:10- 23.11u(d) and held that municipal courts’ jurisdiction in matters arising out of the Spill Act are limited to conducting summary proceedings to enforce “a penalty previously imposed by either the administrative law court or the [S]uperior [C]ourt.” The NJDEP appealed to the Law Division, which reversed the municipal court’s decision.
Appellate Division Decision
The Appellate Division affirmed. “We conclude municipal courts have jurisdiction pursuant to N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11u(d) to impose civil penalties under the Spill Act in a summary proceeding conducted pursuant to the Penalty Enforcement Law of 1999, N.J.S.A 2A:58-10 to -12,” the court held.
[A] plain reading of the text in N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11u(d) reveals the Legislature intended to authorize the DEP to bring a penalty enforcement action against “[a]ny person who violates a provision of [N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11], or a court order issued pursuant thereto, or who fails to pay a civil administrative penalty in full or to agree to a schedule of payments.”
The appeals court highlighted that it reached a similar conclusion in a prior decision involving the Solid Waste Management Act. It also noted that the Supreme Court endorsed the NJDEP’s approach in Rule 7:2-1(h) by “making this type of summary action cognizable in the municipal courts using the Special Summons the DEP used here.”
Key Takeaway
Potentially responsible parties under the Spill Act should be aware that DEP may seek to pursue Spill Act penalties in municipal court. Given that the Appellate Division has sanctioned the approach, the agency may opt for this approach with greater frequency.
If you have any questions, please contact us
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Dan McKillop, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-806-3364.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
NJ Appeals Court Rules Municipal Courts Can Enforce Spill Act Penalties
Author: Daniel T. McKillop
Before the close of 2019, the Appellate Division held that NJDEP can enforce the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act (Spill Act) in municipal courts
Before the close of 2019, the Appellate Division held that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) can enforce the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act (Spill Act) in municipal courts. The ruling in New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. Alsol Corporation is significant given that the NJDEP is increasingly seeking to enforce Spill Act penalties in the municipal courts.
New Jersey Spill Act
The Spill Act provides that “any person who has discharged a hazardous substance, or is in any way responsible for any hazardous substance, shall be strictly liable, jointly and severally, without regard to fault, for all cleanup and removal costs no matter by whom incurred.” The statute, N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11f(a)(2)(a), also authorizes a private cause of action by a responsible party for contribution from other responsible parties.
Of particular relevance to the Appellate Division decision, the Spill Act provides that any person who violates a provision of the Spill Act or who fails to pay a civil administrative penalty will be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $50,000 per day for each violation and that “any penalty incurred under this subsection may be recovered with costs in a summary proceeding… in the Superior Court or a municipal court.” The Spill Act further provides that the “Superior Court and the municipal courts shall have jurisdiction to impose a civil penalty for a violation…in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Penalty Enforcement Law of 1999.”
Facts of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. Alsol Corporation
The NJDEP filed a complaint against Alsol Corporation (Alsol) in the Milltown Municipal Court, using the “Special Form of Complaint and Summons” prescribed by the Administrative Director of the Courts, for failure to remediate a property.
When the matter came before the Milltown Municipal Court, Alsol moved to dismiss the summons for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Alsol argued that municipal courts do not have the authority to adjudicate the merits of an enforcement action brought by the DEP involving alleged violations of the Spill Act.
The municipal court judge concluded that N.J.S.A. 58:10- 23.11u(d) only confers municipal courts with jurisdiction to enforce civil penalties “where a finding of liability has already been adjudicated.” The municipal court judge also rejected the DEP’s interpretation of N.J.S.A. 58:10- 23.11u(d) and held that municipal courts’ jurisdiction in matters arising out of the Spill Act are limited to conducting summary proceedings to enforce “a penalty previously imposed by either the administrative law court or the [S]uperior [C]ourt.” The NJDEP appealed to the Law Division, which reversed the municipal court’s decision.
Appellate Division Decision
The Appellate Division affirmed. “We conclude municipal courts have jurisdiction pursuant to N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11u(d) to impose civil penalties under the Spill Act in a summary proceeding conducted pursuant to the Penalty Enforcement Law of 1999, N.J.S.A 2A:58-10 to -12,” the court held.
[A] plain reading of the text in N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11u(d) reveals the Legislature intended to authorize the DEP to bring a penalty enforcement action against “[a]ny person who violates a provision of [N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11], or a court order issued pursuant thereto, or who fails to pay a civil administrative penalty in full or to agree to a schedule of payments.”
The appeals court highlighted that it reached a similar conclusion in a prior decision involving the Solid Waste Management Act. It also noted that the Supreme Court endorsed the NJDEP’s approach in Rule 7:2-1(h) by “making this type of summary action cognizable in the municipal courts using the Special Summons the DEP used here.”
Key Takeaway
Potentially responsible parties under the Spill Act should be aware that DEP may seek to pursue Spill Act penalties in municipal court. Given that the Appellate Division has sanctioned the approach, the agency may opt for this approach with greater frequency.
If you have any questions, please contact us
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Dan McKillop, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-806-3364.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
