Erit Realty Corp. v. Sea Gate Ass'n

Decision Date19 July 1932
Citation182 N.E. 85,259 N.Y. 466
PartiesERIT REALTY CORPORATION v. SEA GATE ASS'N (Beach Action).
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Action by the Erit Realty Corporation against the Sea Gate Association. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (234 App. Div. 196, 254 N. Y. S. 678), reversing upon the law and the facts a judgment of the Special Term in favor of the defendant, and directing judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.

Judgment modified and, as modified, affirmed.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Harold M. Kennedy and Benjamin Heller, both of Brooklyn, for appellant.

Harry L. Kreeger and William Roth, both of New York City, for respondent.

CROUCH, J.

In 1897 a tract of land known as Sea Gate at the western end of Coney Island was shut off from the land to eastward by a physical barrier running from the Atlantic Ocean on the south to Gravesend bay on the north. Sea Gate was then owned by the Norton Point Land Company. It was in process of development as an exclusively residential district of a high type. It had been surveyed and plotted on a map which was filed in the office of the register of Kings county on June 16, 1897. The map portrayed the upland as laid out in streets, blocks, and building lots. It also portrayed an area marked ‘Beach Reservation’ lying on the ocean side to west and south between a black line marked ‘Mean High Water Line,’ and another black line, marked ‘North Line of Reservation.’ The latter line apparently followed the brink of the upland bank and marked the limit of upland ownership as well as the termini of the streets leading to the beach. In addition to what is shown on the map, it appears from the evidence that the termini of the streets were at that time bulkheadedand that steps or stairs three or four feet high led down to the beach from each bulkhead.

On August 31, 1898, the Norton Point Land Company deeded certain lots to plaintiff's mesne grantor. The description in the deed was by block numbers as shown upon the filed map, to which reference was made. Thereafter, the Norton Point Land Company deeded to the defendant various lots not then sold in the tract, together with all its interest in the streets and beach, including lands under water and between high and low water mark acquired subsequent to the filing of the map and not shown thereon. Concededly defendant by that deed became vested with title to the lands within the street lines and to the lands included in the beach reservation. But that title was subject to any easements then existing.

The defendant was incorporated as a membership corporation. It was an instrumentality by which residents in the Sea Gate colony intended to make secure the social conditions and surroundings as they desired them to be. Among the objects stated in its certificate of incorporation were ‘the mutual comfort and convenience of its members; * * * to provide and maintain open places on the beach * * * for the common use of its members; to provide generally for the care, protection and maintenance of the property at Sea Gate of its members.’ It adopted and enforced certain rules and regulations restricting access to the tract and the use of its streets and beach. The expenses of maintenance and operation were paid by its members. Plaintiff never became a member. Plaintiff's property, located at the northeast corner of the tract, has by its own choice been opened to the public and now lies without the Sea Gate barrier. Nevertheless it asserts and has been granted by the judgment appealed from an easement of access over defendant's streets to and user of the beach reservation as shown on the filed map, subject only ‘to the reasonable rules and regulations of the defendant whereby those having the right to enter such ‘beach reservation’ may be identified.'

The right of the defendant as against the plaintiff to maintain the barrier with entrance gate and guard, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Sterrer v. Genoa
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • September 11, 1970
    ...all the circumstances. Matter of City of New York, Northern Boulevard, 258 N.Y. 136, 147, 179 N.E. 321, 323; Erit Realty Corp. v. Sea Gate Ass'n, 259 N.Y. 466, 470, 182 N.E. 85; Fiedar v. Terstiege, Sup., 56 N.Y.S.2d 837, 843, affirmed 273 App.Div. 982, 79 N.Y.S.2d And, also, at page 608, t......
  • Feigen v. Green Harbour Beach Club, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • June 2, 1960
    ...v. Howard, 10 App.Div. 555, 42 N.Y.S. 335; see Bristol v. Woodward, supra; (4) the principles of implication, Erit Realty Corp. v. Sea Gate Ass'n, 259 N.Y. 466, 182 N.E. 85; Weil v. Atlantic Beach Holding Corporation, supra, and estoppel, Phillips v. West Rockaway Land Co., supra, or a comb......
  • Fischer v. Liebman
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 1, 1988
    ...and the language of the original deeds ( see, e.g., Matter of City of New York 258 N.Y. 136, 147, 179 N.E. 321; Erit Realty Corp. v. Sea Gate Assn., 259 N.Y. 466, 182 N.E. 85; Rose v. Indian Park Assn., supra). Here it may reasonably be inferred from the appearance of the subdivision map an......
  • Gerbig v. Zumpano
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • February 25, 1958
    ...made by reference thereto. Thus, both the physical appearance of the original map of subdivision (cf. Erit Realty Corp. v. Sea Gate Association, 259 N.Y. 466, 470, 182 N.E. 85, 86) and the manner of the conveyances involving the properties herein lead me to infer an intention, as a matter o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT