What PFAS Are and Why They Matter

PFAS — per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — are a family of more than 4,500 synthetic chemicals developed beginning in the 1940s for their resistance to heat, water, oil, and stains. They were used for decades in non-stick cookware (Teflon), water-repellent clothing (Gore-Tex, Scotchgard), food packaging, stain-resistant carpeting, semiconductor manufacturing, and aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) used in firefighting.

The same properties that made PFAS commercially useful also make them nearly impossible to break down in the environment or in the human body — hence “forever chemicals.” Long-term exposure to certain PFAS, particularly PFOA and PFOS, has been linked in peer-reviewed studies to kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, pregnancy-induced hypertension, decreased immune response (including reduced vaccine effectiveness), high cholesterol, and adverse developmental effects in children.

The EPA’s April 2024 Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for PFOA and PFOS is zero — meaning EPA has determined there is no safe level of these chemicals in drinking water. The enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) is set at 4 parts per trillion (ppt) only because that is the practical limit of current laboratory measurement.

Who Is Affected in New York

NY has been at the center of the national PFAS crisis. Major contamination sites and exposure sources in the state include:

Hoosick Falls (Rensselaer County). The 2014 discovery of PFOA in the Village’s municipal water system — traced to Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics and Honeywell — was the matter that brought PFAS to national attention and launched modern PFAS regulation in NY. The Saint-Gobain McCaffrey Street site is on the federal National Priorities List (Superfund). A class-action settlement involving DuPont (now EIDP, Inc.), Saint-Gobain, Honeywell, and 3M provided medical monitoring, property value, and other relief for residents.

Newburgh (Orange County). PFOS contamination of Newburgh’s drinking water was traced to AFFF firefighting foam used at Stewart Air National Guard Base. The case is one of the leading examples of military and federal facility PFAS contamination.

Petersburgh, Poestenkill, New Lebanon (Rensselaer / Columbia counties): additional upstate community contamination sites under active NYSDEC remediation.

Long Island. Multiple Suffolk and Nassau County water districts have detected PFAS at levels requiring treatment. Industrial sources, military installations (including former Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Calverton and Gabreski Air National Guard Base), and historic contamination plumes contribute. NY DOH has identified 23% of public water wells in the state as needing treatment for PFOA and PFOS.

Plattsburgh, Rome, Southampton. Additional sites with AFFF-related contamination from former or current military airfields.

Firefighters and military members. Direct AFFF foam exposure during training and emergency response is a separate category of personal-injury claim, consolidated in the AFFF Multi-District Litigation (MDL 2873) in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.

Workers at PFAS-handling facilities. Manufacturing employees, maintenance workers, and others with occupational exposure are a separate category.

Property owners near contamination sites. Diminished property value, well-water remediation costs, and relocation costs can support property-damage claims.

The Regulatory Framework — Federal and New York

Authority	What It Does
EPA NPDWR (April 10, 2024)	Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels: 4 ppt for PFOA, 4 ppt for PFOS, 10 ppt each for PFHxS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA (GenX). Hazard Index of 1 for mixtures of two or more of PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS. MCLG of zero for PFOA/PFOS. Public water systems must complete initial monitoring by 2027 and reduce levels by 2029.
CERCLA hazardous substance designation (April 2024)	EPA designated PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA (Superfund). Triggers reporting requirements, federal cleanup authority, and cost-recovery exposure for responsible parties.
Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 300f et seq.)	Federal authority for the NPDWR and underlying enforcement structure.
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq.)	EPA authority to regulate manufacture, import, processing, and use of chemical substances, including PFAS.
NY Public Health Law (Subpart 5-1)	NY MCLs adopted in 2020: 10 ppt for PFOA, 10 ppt for PFOS, 1 ppb for 1,4-dioxane. NY was among the first states with enforceable PFAS MCLs. NY DOH continues evaluating additional PFAS regulations through the Drinking Water Quality Council.
NY Environmental Conservation Law	State Superfund authority (ECL Article 27, Title 13), cleanup authority, and enforcement against responsible parties at state Superfund sites such as Hoosick Falls, Petersburgh, and others.
NY consumer product restrictions	NY has restricted PFAS in carpeting, food packaging, apparel, and certain other consumer products through ECL Article 37 and related statutes, with phase-in dates over recent years.
RCRA (42 U.S.C. §§ 6901 et seq.)	Resource Conservation and Recovery Act — federal hazardous waste authority. Pending EPA rulemaking is expected to bring additional PFAS within RCRA’s scope.

Federal regulatory uncertainty. In early 2025, the new EPA administration announced its intent to extend the PFOA/PFOS compliance deadlines and to rescind and reconsider the regulations for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and the Hazard Index. The PFOA/PFOS MCLs of 4 ppt themselves were not announced for rescission as of this writing, but the regulatory landscape is in flux. NY’s state-level MCLs remain in effect regardless of federal changes. We monitor developments and update this page accordingly.

The Major Settlements

Two large multi-district class settlements have resolved a substantial portion of the public-water-system PFAS exposure:

3M public water system settlement. $10.3 billion present value (up to $12.5 billion total over 13 years), final approval March 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. Covers virtually all U.S. public water systems with detected PFAS or that are required to test under EPA’s Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5). Funds testing and treatment.

DuPont / Chemours / Corteva public water system settlement. $1.185 billion. Same court, similar class structure. Specific contribution percentages: Chemours 50% (~$592 million), DuPont ~$400 million, Corteva ~$193 million.

Both settlements are for public water systems — not individual residents. PWS claim deadlines fall throughout 2026 (key deadlines on January 1, June 30, and July 30, 2026). NY public water systems with detected PFAS or UCMR 5 monitoring obligations should review their participation and claim status — missing the deadlines forfeits the settlement allocation.

AFFF Multi-District Litigation (MDL 2873). The aqueous film-forming foam MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina handles personal-injury claims by firefighters, military members, and others exposed to AFFF foam, plus property and natural-resource damages claims. Bellwether trials and global settlements continue. Individual claimants need to be evaluated for inclusion.

State enforcement actions. NY has pursued state-level enforcement against various PFAS responsible parties. New Jersey’s recent settlements with 3M (May 2025) and DuPont/Chemours/Corteva ($875 million, August 2025) illustrate the state-AG enforcement track in parallel to private and class litigation.

Hoosick Falls class settlement. A specific Hoosick Falls / Town of Hoosick class settlement provides medical monitoring relief, property-value relief, and other benefits for eligible residents based on residency and water-system exposure during 1996–2016 and PFOA blood serum levels exceeding 1.86 µg/L. Class members should review the settlement notices for participation deadlines.

Who May Have a Case — The Five Categories

PFAS legal claims in NY break into five reasonably distinct categories. Different facts, different theories, different forums, different timelines. Understanding which category applies is the first step.

Legal Theories Available

Depending on facts and category, PFAS claims may proceed under one or more of the following theories:

• Strict products liability — design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn (against manufacturers of PFAS chemicals or PFAS-containing products such as AFFF foam)
• Negligence — failure to exercise reasonable care in manufacturing, distribution, disposal, or remediation
• Common-law nuisance and trespass — against polluters whose contamination has migrated to property owners’ land or water sources
• Negligent infliction of emotional distress — in narrow circumstances under NY law involving documented exposure and reasonable fear of disease
• Battery / fraud / fraudulent concealment — where polluters knew of PFAS dangers and concealed them (relevant to the historical conduct of certain PFAS manufacturers)
• CERCLA cost recovery (42 U.S.C. § 9607) — for parties incurring response costs at contaminated sites
• NY Navigation Law § 181 — spill liability and cleanup cost recovery for petroleum-contaminated sites; PFAS analogs are evolving
• Medical monitoring — recognized as a remedy in NY toxic-tort cases under Caronia and progeny
• State and federal consumer protection statutes — for marketing of PFAS-containing consumer products

Statutes of Limitations

NY toxic-tort SOLs are complex and the discovery rule plays a significant role:

Personal injury (CPLR § 214-c). Three years from the date of discovery of the injury (the date when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury and its cause). The “discovery of cause” component creates significant case-by-case variation. CPLR § 214-c(4) provides additional protection: a one-year window from discovery of the cause, even if more than three years have passed since discovery of the injury, where the cause was not previously known.

Property damage. Generally three years under CPLR § 214(4), with the discovery rule available in toxic-substance cases under CPLR § 214-c.

Wrongful death (EPTL § 5-4.1). Two years from the date of death.

Federal (CERCLA § 9613). Statute of limitations for cost recovery actions varies by action type; federally preempts certain state limitations.

Class settlement deadlines. The 3M, DuPont/Chemours/Corteva, and Hoosick Falls settlements have specific claim-submission deadlines that operate independently of statutory SOLs. Missing a settlement deadline forfeits participation even where the underlying SOL would still permit suit.

If you suspect PFAS exposure, do not wait to consult counsel. Several deadlines may run in parallel.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I know if my drinking water contains PFAS?

Public water systems in NY are required to provide annual Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs) that include detected contaminants. Many NY water systems now disclose PFAS testing results. NY DOH maintains a public information page on PFAS in drinking water. Private well owners must arrange independent testing — certified laboratories in NY can test for PFAS, generally at $200–$500 per sample. UCMR 5 monitoring data is publicly available through EPA.

My doctor diagnosed me with kidney cancer and I drank Hoosick Falls water in 2010. Do I have a case?

Possibly. The Hoosick Falls class settlement may apply, as may individual claims against responsible parties depending on participation status, blood serum testing, and case-specific facts. The CPLR § 214-c discovery rule may extend the window beyond what the standard 3-year SOL would suggest. The threshold question is whether you are a class member under the existing settlement, whether you have opted out, and whether individual litigation is available. This requires immediate counsel review.

I’m a firefighter who used AFFF foam for years and was just diagnosed with thyroid cancer. What now?

Document your exposure history (departments served, training records, deployment records) and your medical history (diagnosis date, treatment, prognosis). The AFFF MDL in South Carolina is the primary forum for these cases. Many firms handle AFFF MDL intake on contingency. Time matters — both for SOL purposes and for inclusion in active settlement negotiations.

I own property near a contaminated site. The contamination has been disclosed in the news. Can I sell?

You can sell, but contamination disclosure is generally required under NY law (the Property Condition Disclosure Statement and seller-disclosure obligations). Diminished value from documented contamination may support a claim against the responsible party. Document the property’s value before and after the contamination disclosure became public. Consult both real estate counsel and environmental counsel before listing.

I’m a public water system manager. We just got our UCMR 5 results and PFAS is detected. What do we do?

First, comply with notification and treatment obligations under federal and NY law. Second, evaluate participation in the 3M and DuPont/Chemours/Corteva settlements — key claim deadlines fall throughout 2026 and missing them forfeits the system’s allocation. Third, consider whether individual litigation against responsible parties (in addition to or instead of class participation) is appropriate given system size and contamination magnitude. Counsel review is time-sensitive.

My blood test shows elevated PFAS but I’m not sick. Do I have a claim?

Possibly — for medical monitoring rather than for present injury. NY recognizes medical monitoring as a remedy where exposure is documented, the substance is hazardous, increased risk of disease is established, and a monitoring regime exists. The Caronia line of cases sets the framework. Individual claims for medical monitoring outside an existing class settlement are difficult and fact-intensive; class participation (where available) is usually more cost-effective.

Will the firm take my case on contingency?

For personal-injury and AFFF MDL matters, contingency representation is generally available where the medical and exposure facts support a viable claim. For property-damage matters, fee structure varies by case size and complexity. For public water system matters, the fee structure is typically negotiated based on the system size and the chosen path (settlement participation versus individual litigation). Initial case evaluation is no-cost and direct.

How We Help

The firm advises NY residents on PFAS exposure matters, including: case-category assessment (which of the five claim types fits); review of class settlement participation rights and deadlines (3M, DuPont/Chemours/Corteva, Hoosick Falls); coordination with AFFF MDL counsel for firefighter and military exposure matters; property-damage and diminished-value claims for affected property owners; and public water system advisory on settlement participation and individual litigation strategy. Where the matter benefits from additional resources — particularly large MDL personal-injury cases — the firm partners with experienced toxic-tort and MDL trial counsel.

Related pages: Environmental law violations · Personal injury · Wrongful death · Defective drugs and dangerous products · Healthcare law

Resources

• EPA — PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
• NY Department of Health — PFAS in Public Drinking Water
• NYSDEC — Hoosick Falls Area Cleanup

Contact Us

Call toll-free: (888) 275-2620. Available 24/7.

Suffolk County Office: 12 Bank Avenue, Smithtown, NY 11787

Nassau County Office: 1225 Franklin Avenue, Suite 325, Garden City, NY 11530

The firm represents NY residents and entities in PFAS exposure matters across all 62 New York counties.

Our law firm has over 3,000 client testimonials across Google, BBB, Trustpilot, and other platforms. View verified client reviews.

Contact the law firm

Last reviewed by Attorney Ronald S. Cook — May 2026

This page is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The PFAS regulatory landscape and litigation framework continue to evolve through agency rulemaking, ongoing federal and state litigation, and class settlement administration; verify current case status and deadlines before relying on the information here. Prior results do not guarantee future results.