N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Public Health / ARTICLE Public Water Supplies; Sewerage and Sewage Control / TITLE Potable Waters
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Public Health Law § 1105 (2026)

Sewage removal or purification; rights of property owners

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 1105. Sewage removal or purification; rights of property owners.  1.
The owner of any building the removal of which is occasioned or
required, or which has been removed by any rule or regulation of the
department, or the commissioner of environmental protection of the city
of New York, or the board of water supply of the city of New York, made
under the provisions of this article, and all persons whose rights of
property are injuriously affected by the enforcement of any such rule or
regulation, shall have a cause of action against the municipality or
corporation, and shall have the right to present a claim against and to
the state or state institution, park, reservation or post owning the
waterworks benefited by the enforcement of such rule or regulation, for
all damages occasioned or sustained by such removal or enforcement,
including all injuries caused to the legitimate use or operation of such
property.
  2. (a) An action for such damages may be brought against such
municipality or corporation in accordance with the provisions of the
eminent domain procedure law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1999–2008 · leading case: Ryder v. City of New York, 32 A.D.3d 836 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ryder v. City of New York, 32 A.D.3d 836 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2006). · cites it 4× “), dated March 24, 2005, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action to recover damages pursuant to Public Health Law § 1105. Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.”
Worcester Creameries Corp. v. City of New York, 54 A.D.3d 87 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2008). · cites it 4× “Defendants argue that the terms of the Watershed MOA limit its financial obligation regarding private WWTPs to a maximum of 30 years and that they are not responsible for costs incurred as a result of the expansion of a private WWTP They further urge a narrow interpretation of…”
Putnam Cnty. Nat'l Bank v. City of New York, 37 A.D.3d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007). · cites it 2× “The Bank commenced this action to recover damages under Public Health Law § 1105, alleging that the enforcement of the Watershed Regulations effected an unconstitutional taking of its property without just compensation.”
Kent Acres Dev. Co. v. City of New York, 41 A.D.3d 542 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007). · cites it 3× “*543 In a hybrid action, inter aha, for a judgment declaring that 15 RCNY 18-82 (g) (1) is invalid, to recover damages pursuant to Public Health Law § 1105 (1), and to recover damages for the taking of real property without just compensation, and proceeding pursuant to CPLR…”
Virgem Enter., Inc. v. City of New York, 290 A.D.2d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2002). “Since the record fails to support the finding that plaintiff stated a claim for an injury caused by those regulations, Supreme Court erred in not dismissing all claims under Public Health Law § 1105. The same deficiency also should have led Supreme Court to dismiss plaintiffs…”
Loft Corp. v. City of New York, 260 A.D.2d 549 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1999). · cites it 4× “—In six related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for an unconsti *550 tutional taking of real property and under Public Health Law § 1105, the defendant in each action, the City of New York, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.”
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.