Knight v. Ciarlone
| Decision Date | 07 December 1959 |
| Parties | W. Proctor KNIGHT, Plaintiff, v. Joseph CIARLONE and Ellen Ciarlone, Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Layden & Layden, Whitehall (Edward F. Layden, Whitehall, of counsel), for plaintiff. Erskine Clark Rogers, Jr., Hudson Falls , for defendants.
The plaintiff who is the owner of certain lands which border upon the waters of Lake George in an area known as Pickerel Bay in the Town of Dresden, Washington County, N. Y., in this section seeks to enjoin and restrain the defendants from trespassing on his lands and to compel the defendants to remove a dock which extends into Lake George.
The defendants who are the owners of four lots which admittedly are not contiguous to the waters of said lake, not only deny that they constructed or own said dock but claim that the plaintiff does not own the land upon which the dock stands and further that they have the right to use a portion of Pickerel Bay Beach by reason of an easement contained in their deeds to the four lots.
The testimony and exhibits in this action satisfy me that the dock is on lands belonging to the plaintiff and that same was constructed by the defendants.
The easement relied upon by the defendants reads in part as follows:
'And it is intended to include in the conveyance of the property a full right of way to the party of the second part, his heirs and assigns, over the streets next adjacent to the premises extending to a public highway to Pickerel Bay Beach and to Lake George * * *.'
Under the most generous and liberal construction it can not be said that the aforesaid right of way permits the construction of a dock on on plaintiff's lands.
The title to the bed of Lake George is in the People of the State of New York and its waters are public waters. However, the plaintiff in this action as the owner of the upland has not only title of the land to the low water mark but also the right of access to and from the waters of the lake and the right to build such docks and piers from such lands into the water as will not interfere with navigation. This right is only an appurtenance or easement to the ownership of the uplands. The defendants, whose property does not adjoin the lake waters, can not, therefore, build a structure which interferes with the littoral right of the owner of the upland. To permit them to do so would justify...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
West v. Smith
...that the county road right-of-way is limited to the flat, traveled, portion of the turnaround is without merit.11 Knight v. Ciarlone, 200 N.Y.S.2d 805 (1959); Musgrove v. Cicco, 96 N.H. 141, 71 A.2d 495 (1950).12 Johnson v. Jeldness, 85 Or. 657, 167 P. 798, 799 (1917); Peck v. Alfred Olsen ......
-
Sea Cabin v. City of North Myrtle Beach
...at the time of conveyance. People's Counsel v. Marine Maryland Mfg. Co., Inc., 316 Md. 491, 560 A.2d 32, 36 (1989); Knight v. Ciarlone, 200 N.Y.S.2d 805 (Sup.Ct.1959). Other courts have found that a pier is an appurtenance to real estate for tax purposes, Everhart v. Commissioner, T.C.Memo ......
-
Town of Peru v. State, 47204
...was to some degree built upon state land, could only be used by residents of the Town of Peru. Furthermore, as stated in Knight v. Ciarlone, Sup., 200 N.Y.S.2d 805, 806, the right of an upland owner to build docks into navigable waters, is '* * * only an appurtenance or easement to the owne......
-
Allen v. Potter
...owner with regard to Canandaigua Lake and her easement to get to the Alke does not give her the rights of a riparian owner. Knight v. Ciarlone, Sup., 200 N.Y.S.2d 805. As a member of the public certainly plaintiff's rights do not under the facts in this case exceed the riparian rights of th......