New York State
Croton’s PFAS water-cost lawsuit
The Village seeks investigation, testing, treatment, filtration and other damages from 17 named companies over alleged PFAS contamination of its groundwater supply. No damages total is specified.
- Case
- 70875/2026
- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Westchester County
- Record checked
Village of Croton-on-Hudson, NY v. AGC Chemicals Americas Inc. et al.
The current position
Complaint filed; no ruling shown
The public state electronic file checked October 16 displayed only the processed summons and complaint. No defense filing or court decision was displayed.
Watch for proof of service, defense appearances and responses, orders, any transfer and actual case-specific cost or recovery records. No future court appearance was displayed at this check.
What the Village is seeking
Payment for investigation, testing, treatment and filtration costs, plus other requested damages. These are requests; no award appears in the reviewed docket.
Why 17 companies are named
The complaint targets several stages in the foam supply chain and argues that mixed products make tracing a particular manufacturer difficult. The court has not accepted those responsibility theories in the reviewed record.
How to read the water results
The 2025 annual report gives dated PFOS results, including 3.67 ng/L in Well 1 for July–September 2025, and marks no violation. It does not establish conditions at a tap in October 2026 or decide this lawsuit.
An earlier legal authorization
Trustees authorized a PFAS cost-recovery retainer in August 2023, covering the South Carolina multidistrict proceeding and appropriate state/federal actions. Authorization alone does not prove this state case was transferred or settled.
Official August 14, 2023 trustees minutes — PFAS authorization
The timeline
From the recordHow we got here
- Village authorization
Trustees authorize PFAS cost-recovery counsel
Resolution 178-2023 passes 4–0 and authorizes a Napoli Shkolnik retainer, subject to Village attorney approval. It covers federal multidistrict litigation and other appropriate state/federal actions.
Why this matters: Shows that the Village authorized lawyers to seek PFAS costs before filing this lawsuit.
- Water monitoring
First 2024 EPA monitoring sample
At EP05, the entry point labeled for Wells 1, 3 and 4, PFOA/PFOS results were below the UCMR 5 reporting level of 4 ng/L. This is historical monitoring context, not a court event.
Why this matters: Shows what testing found in 2024. A result below the reporting level does not mean zero or establish current compliance with drinking-water limits.
- Water monitoring
Second 2024 EPA monitoring sample
At EP05, the entry point labeled for Wells 1, 3 and 4, PFOA/PFOS results were below the UCMR 5 reporting level of 4 ng/L. This is historical monitoring context, not a court event.
Why this matters: Provides a second 2024 measurement. Results below the reporting level do not mean zero or establish current compliance with drinking-water limits.
- July–September 2025Water monitoring
PFOS monitoring period in annual water report
The Village report lists PFOS at 3.67 ng/L in Well 1, <2.12 in Well 3 and <2.00 in Well 4, with No violation marked. These are the report’s dated 2025 entries, not a court finding.
Why this matters: Shows what the Village reported before filing suit. These tests do not identify who caused contamination or establish water conditions in 2026.
- Court filing
Village files summons and complaint
Document 1 names 17 corporate defendants plus unidentified defendants and seeks investigation, testing, treatment, filtration and other damages. It demands a jury trial.
Why this matters: Starts this state lawsuit seeking compensation. The complaint’s allegations do not establish liability or an award.
- Newsroom check
State electronic docket checked
One processed summons/complaint remained displayed. No defense filing, ruling or appearance notice was displayed in the checked state electronic record. This is a reporting observation.
Why this matters: Shows the public state-court record as of October 16. No future court appearance was displayed at that check.