Dolphin Lane Associates, Ltd. v. Town of Southampton
| Citation | 339 N.Y.S.2d 966,72 Misc.2d 868 |
| Parties | DOLPHIN LANE ASSOCIATES, LIMITED, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON, Defendant, Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonalty of the Town of Southampton, Defendant-Intervenor. |
| Decision Date | 29 December 1971 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Plaintiff, owner of certain real property within the Town of Southampton, commenced this action to declare unconstitutional certain zoning ordinances enacted by the defendant Town of Southampton (hereinafter referred to as Town). The defendant Town served an answer to said complaint in which it basically denied the allegations of the complaint and along with defendant-intervenor Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonalty of the Town of Southampton (hereinafter referred to as Trustees), set forth certain counterclaims pursuant to Article 15 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law. The defendants, in effect, asserted that they, on behalf of the people of the Town of Southampton, have superior title and/or interest to certain portions of the real property claimed to be owned by plaintiff in its zoning action.
Plaintiff replied to the counterclaims of the defendants and took issue with the allegations contained in said counterclaims. The counterclaims and the reply thereto created questions as to title of certain real property located within the Town of Southampton.
What is the location of the area in dispute? The premises, which are the subject matter of the defendants' counterclaims, are bounded on the south by the Atlantic Ocean and on the north by Shinnecock Bay. Dune Road bisects the subject premises east to west. The defendants, on the Atlantic Ocean Side of Dune Road, claim the land lying south of the grass at the top of the dunes to the ocean itself.
The defendants claim to own the premises north of Dune Road, allegedly covered twice daily by the average high tide of the Shinnecock Bay. The premises are bounded on the east by Triton Lane and on the west by a line running 500 feet parallel to the easterly boundary of the Village of Quogue. The defendants also claim ownership to all of the 'island' designated from time to time as Gull Island, Sedge Island and Frank's Bog.
What, in effect, do the pleadings herein indicate. The issues may be summarized as follows:
1. Did plaintiff's remote predecessors in interest have the right to convey legal title?
2. Does either defendant have title to the beach lands on South Beach in the Town of Southampton, lying between the average high water line of the Atlantic Ocean and the southerly top edge of the sand dunes?
3. If plaintiff has title to these beaches, are these beaches subject to an easement in favor of the inhabitants of the Town of Southampton?
4. Who has title to the 'island' lying in the Shinnecock Bay and which has been known by the names Gull Island, Frank's Bog and Sedge Island?
5. Does either defendant have title to any of the land lying north of Dune Road and which is below the average high water line of the Shinnecock Bay?
The Appellate Division in 311 N.Y.S.2d 962 ordered that all issues of title raised in defendants' answers be separately tried and said defendants are to proceed as if their claims, as to title in the counterclaims, had been asserted as an action in chief. The Appellate Division also ordered that the trial of the zoning issue be held after the issue of title has been determined. This decision will only deal with the questions of title.
This action, by its very nature, involves the tracing of chains of title going back to the earliest settlement of the Town of Southampton. Thus, the history of the early settlement and development of Southampton must be examined. The past must be explored in order to understand the present.
How did the development of Southampton come about? In the year 1639, eight men from Massachusetts executed an agreement known as 'The Disposall of the Vessel' for the purpose of establishing a permanent settlement on Long Island. The signatories of this agreement, who were later increased to eighteen, were known as the 'undertakers'. The agreement itself contained provisions for the establishment of a company, the procurement of a vessel and methods to be employed in finding a site and distributing the land (The First Book of Records, Books 1--4 of the Records of the Town of Southampton published in 1874).
The Earl of Stirling, by means of title allegedly derived from the British Crown, claimed ownership of all of Long Island. The undertakers secured a deed from one, James Farrett, a representative of the Earl of Stirling, in return for the consideration of 400 pounds. These early pioneers commenced building a settlement in the vicinity of the present Town of Hempstead. The Dutch settlers of New Amsterdam claimed all ownership of Long Island and thus strongly opposed the undertakers' new settlement. The undertakers, in the face of this vehement opposition, left the settlement.
The undertakers, after returning to New England, sought redress from Farrett. Farrett, in order to quiet the undertakers, delivered to them a new deed, purporting to convey all those lands lying between:
'Peaconeck and the eastern most point of Long Island with the whole breadth of the said island from sea to sea . . . excepting those lands already granted unto any person by me.'
The company, founded by the undertakers, landed at a harbor in 'Peaconeck' Bay in June of 1640 and established a settlement in the vicinity of the area now known as the Village of Southampton (Adams History of the Town of Southampton, p. 51).
The land was divided among the settlers. Some of the lands were used for private homes and other lots were used for agricultural purposes. However, a large measure of the area was held as an 'undivided commons' for use by all settlers (Adams, Supra, pp. 61--62).
The townspeople were divided into two classes. One class was the 'freeholder and inhabitant' and the other class was known as the 'proprietors'. The freeholder and inhabitant had all the rights of any townsman and could purchase land after the same was divided by order of the town. However, this class did not share in the proceeds from the sale of undivided lands. Only the proprietors shared in the proceeds from the sale of the undivided lands.
There were conflicting claims to the ownership of the lands settled by the original undertakers. The Dutch claimed ownership of these lands and the Colony of Connecticut claimed jurisdiction over all of eastern Long Island, including the subject area (Adams Supra, p. 88). The Dutch claims were forcibly extinguished in 1664 by the British seizure of New Amsterdam. Charles II, granted all the lands of New Amsterdam, including al of Long Island to the Duke of York, even though this grant was clearly contrary to the jurisdiction claimed by Connecticut (Bayles, Historical and Descriptive Sketches of Suffolk County, p. 33).
English control of Long Island was briefly interrupted when the Dutch regained control of New York in the early 1670's. However, England won the war against Holland and English control of the colony was restored.
In 1674, a new patent was issued to the Duke of York. The Duke, eager to establish control over New York, appointed Edmund Andross governor and gave him broad authority to govern the area. The new governor ruled that all previous patents were invalid and required the various towns in Long Island to purchase new patents which were to be issued by him.
In 1676 the Town of Southampton received the Andross patent. The patent was in the form of a grant and it ratified, confirmed and granted to certain individuals therein named 'for and on the behalfe of themselves and their Associates, the freeholders and Inhabitants of the said Towne, their Heires, Successors and Assignes' a tract of land of which 'Their Southern bounds being the Sea'. The individuals so named were also granted 'all Rivers, Lakes, waters, . . . to the said Towne, Tract of land and premises, within the limits and bounds aforementioned described, belonging or in any wise appertaining.'
Thus, these individuals were granted all the land presently within the boundaries of the Town of Southampton.
In 1686 a new governor by the name of Thomas Dongan was appointed for the State of New York. The new governor required the Town of Southampton to take a new patent known as the 'Dongan' patent. The new patent recited the Andross patent at length, and 'Granted Ratifyed Released and Confirmed' to certain persons therein named, who are created a corporation 'by the name of the trustees of the freeholders and commonalty of the Town of Southampton' and their successors, the same territory, without again describing it.
This vested the title to all land, not in the lawful possession of some individuals, within the boundaries named in the Town of Southampton. The legal title to this land was held by the Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonalty of the Town of Southampton.
These patents were confirmed by the act of the Colonial Assembly of May 6, 1691 and by the State Constitution of 1777 (Bradford's Laws, 1694, p. 6; Colonial Laws of N.Y., I, 224--225).
A major portion of the unallotted land remaining in Southampton over the years and down to the beginning of the nineteenth century was sold at town meetings. The proceeds of the sales were shared only by the proprietors. The proprietors, anxious to increase the amount of money which would be given to them, asserted that their right to the proceeds of sales in the undivided lands of the town included a right to share in the products of the waters of the town. A controversy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rottenberg v. Edwards
...985; People v. Levine, 74 Misc.2d 808, 343 N.Y.S.2d 816, affd. 79 Misc.2d 103, 359 N.Y.S.2d 939; Dolphin Lane Assoc. v. Town of Southampton, 72 Misc.2d 868, 881, 339 N.Y.S.2d 966, affd. 43 A.D.2d 727, 350 N.Y.S.2d 451, mod. on other grounds 37 N.Y.2d 292, 372 N.Y.S.2d 52, 333 N.E.2d 358; se......
-
MacKlowe v. Trs. of the Freeholders & Commonality of the Town of E. Hampton
...mark can be considered reliable only if based on observations made over a reasonable period of time ( see Dolphin Lane Assoc. v. Town of Southampton, 72 Misc.2d 868, 339 N.Y.S.2d 966 [Sup Ct Suffolk County 1971], affd43 A.D.2d 727, 350 N.Y.S.2d 451 [2d Dept 1973], mod. on other grounds37 N.......
-
Gessin v. Throne-Holst
...later, the King of England appointed a new Governor of the province of New York–Thomas Dongan (see Dolphin Lane Assoc. v. Town of Southampton, 72 Misc.2d 868, 872, 339 N.Y.S.2d 966, affd. 43 A.D.2d 727, 350 N.Y.S.2d 451, mod. on other grounds 37 N.Y.2d 292, 372 N.Y.S.2d 52, 333 N.E.2d 358 )......
-
Trustees of Freeholders and Commonalty of Town of Southampton v. Heilner
...Southampton v. Heilner and DeMarco, DeLuca, J. (Suffolk County), 27 September 1975, and the case of Dolphin Lane Associates, Ltd. v. Town of Southampton, 72 Misc.2d 868, 339 N.Y.S.2d 966, affirmed, 43 A.D.2d 727, 351 N.Y.S.2d 364, and modified by the Court of Appeals, 37 N.Y.2d 292, 372 N.Y......
-
CHAPTER 8 APPLICATION OF THE LAW OF "TAKINGS" TO RESTRICTIONS ON MINERAL DEVELOPMENT
...(involving a change in the dividing line between public and private beach). [66] See, e.g., Dolphin Lane Assocs. v. Town of Southampton, 72 Misc. 2d 868, 339 N.Y.S.2d 966, 975 (1971), aff'd, 43 A.D.2d 727, 351 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1973); State v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 283 Or. 147, 582 P.2d ......