N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER General Business / ARTICLE Protection of Underground Facilities
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. General Business Law § 765 (2026)

Penalties and liabilities

✓ text as retrieved May 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 765. Penalties and liabilities. 1. Civil penalties.  a. Failure to
comply with any provision of this article shall subject an excavator or
an operator to a civil penalty of up to four thousand three hundred
seventy-five dollars for the first violation and up to an additional
seventeen thousand five hundred dollars for each succeeding violation
that occurs within a twelve month period.
  b. The penalties provided for by this article shall not apply to an
excavator who damages an underground facility due to the failure of the
operator to comply with any of the provisions of this article nor shall
in such instance the excavator be liable for repairs as prescribed in
subdivision four of this section.
  c. An action to recover a penalty under this article may be brought in
the supreme court in the judicial district in which the violation was
alleged to have occurred which shall be commenced and prosecuted by the
attorney general. The public service commission shall, pursuant to
section one hundred nineteen-b of the public service law, forward to the
attorney general its determination of the amount of the penalty for
violations or rules and regulations adopted to implement the
requirements of this article. Upon receipt of such determination, the
attorney general may commence an action to recover such penalty. All
moneys recovered in any such action, together with the costs thereof,
and all moneys recovered as the result of any such public service
commission determination shall be paid into the environmental protection
fund established pursuant to section ninety-two-s of the state finance
law.
  2. Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, nothing in this
article shall impair, limit or reduce the statutory, common law or
contractual duties or tort or other liability of any excavator
excavating or demolishing in the vicinity of underground facilities.
  3. Any excavator engaging in or proposing to engage in excavation or
demolition in a negligent or unsafe manner, which has resulted in or is
likely to result in damage to underground facilities in such a manner
that life, property or the continuation of operator service is
endangered, may be enjoined from such excavation or demolition or any
aspect thereof upon application of the operator owning the facilities or
the attorney general made in supreme court having jurisdiction in the
county wherein the excavation or demolition or proposed excavation or
demolition is to take place. Three or more instances of damage by an
excavator to underground facilities in the course of the entire
self-same excavation or demolition activity shall be prima facie grounds
for enjoining the excavator from further performance of the excavation
or demolition activity.
  4. In the event that, as a result of a violation of any of the
provisions of this article by an excavator, it is necessary that an
operator make any repair to or provide new support to an underground
facility, the excavator shall be liable to the operator for reasonable
costs so incurred.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1996–2017 · leading case: Watral & Sons, Inc. v. OC Riverhead 58, LLC, 34 A.D.3d 560 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Watral & Sons, Inc. v. OC Riverhead 58, LLC, 34 A.D.3d 560 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2006). · cites it 2× “, 3 AD3d 606 [2004]), the consequences of such a violation are spelled out in section 765 of the General Business Law, and include, inter alia, an obligation to indemnify the operator of the cable for the “reasonable costs” incurred in repairing or providing new support for it…”
City of Albany v. Cent. Locating Serv., Ltd., 228 A.D.2d 920 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1996). · cites it 2× “NiMo contends that pursuant to General Business Law former § 764 (2) (now codified as General Business Law § 765 [1] [b]), it was plaintiffs responsibility as an operator and municipality to comply with regulatory and statutory requirements and due to plaintiffs failure to…”
Verizon New York Inc. v. New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 151 A.D.3d 614 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2017). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff’s instant action seeks not the statutory remedy of reasonable repair costs for the damage to its equipment, but rather, it alleges a common-law negligence claim, which General Business Law § 765 (2) expressly provides is not excluded by the General Business Law article…”
Long Island Lighting Co. v. Town of North Hempstead, 101 A.D.3d 956 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). “Since, in opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see General Business Law § 765 [1] [b]; 16 NYCRR 753-4.”
Long Island Lighting Co. v. Town of North Hempstead, 101 A.D.3d 956 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). “Since, in opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see General Business Law § 765 [1] [b]; 16 NYCRR 753-4.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.