S&K Commack Development, LLC v. Hasn Dry Cleaners, Inc., 2:13-cv-05297

S&K Commack Development, LLC (plaintiff) purchased property at 6230-E Jericho Turnpike (the Site); past tenant Hasn Dry Cleaners, Inc. (Hasn) — doing business as Kwik Cleaners — and Howard Singer operated a dry‑cleaning business there from 1984 until ~2010. Singer managed day‑to‑day operations for many years.
A 2013 Phase II environmental assessment (required for refinance) discovered perchloroethylene (PCE)‑contaminated soil beneath the former dry‑cleaning space; Suffolk County required remediation.
Plaintiff retained MECC (consultant) and East Coast Environmental Restoration (excavation). Invoices show remediation and assessment costs; plaintiff seeks recovery under CERCLA §107(a) and declaratory relief under CERCLA §113(g)(2).
Defendants were served but failed to timely answer, failed to retain counsel for the corporation, and largely ignored court orders and conferences; court converted pretrial events into a default proceeding.
The court found defendants were given notice and opportunity to be heard, entered defaults under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), and addressed liability, damages (limited by Rule 54(c)), prejudgment interest, and a declaratory judgment for future response costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defaults should be entered	Defendants failed to answer or comply with orders; defaults appropriate	Singer argued compliance during his management years and disputed ownership/role	Entry of default against both Hasn and Singer under Rule 55(a) (corporation cannot appear pro se; Singer failed to otherwise defend)
CERCLA liability of defendants as PRPs	Defendants operated the facility and used/disposed of PCE; plaintiff incurred necessary response costs	Singer asserted lawful operation (esp. 1997–2010) and inspected com pliance; no sworn proof offered	Defendants are liable as PRPs under §107(a); plaintiff proved release, response costs, and PRP status; no CERCLA affirmative defense shown
Amount of recoverable damages	Plaintiff seeks remediation costs and sought $83,885 in the complaint; records show higher actual costs	Defendants contended no future costs because site later leased; disputed liability facts	Judgment awarded for the amount pleaded: $83,885 (Rule 54(c) bars awarding more than pleaded), with mandatory prejudgment interest to be calculated and submitted for objections
Declaratory relief for future response costs	Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment that defendants are liable for any future necessary, NCP‑consistent costs	Defendants argued compliance and no future costs	Court granted declaratory judgment under §113(g)(2) that defendants are responsible for future necessary and NCP‑consistent response costs

City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114 (2d Cir.) (standard and two‑step Rule 55 default/default judgment framework)
Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers Local 2 v. Moulton Masonry & Constr., LLC, 779 F.3d 182 (2d Cir.) (defaults and damages principles)
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 596 F.3d 112 (2d Cir.) (CERCLA PRP liability, remedial reach, and minimal waste threshold)
United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51 (U.S. Supreme Court) (definition of an operator under CERCLA)
Grace v. Bank Leumi Trust Co. of N.Y., 443 F.3d 180 (2d Cir.) (corporations must appear by counsel; defaults for failure to appear)
Cement & Concrete Workers Dist. Council v. Metro Found. Contractors Inc., 699 F.3d 230 (2d Cir.) (damages proof on default: evidentiary basis required)