Koepp v. Holland

Decision Date04 February 2010
Docket NumberNo. 08-CV-01369.,08-CV-01369.
Citation688 F. Supp.2d 65
PartiesCynthia J. KOEPP, John D. Place, Todd Zwigard and Paddington M. Zwigard, Plaintiffs, v. Susanne HOLLAND, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

Michaels & Smolak, P.C., Michael G. Bersani, Esq., of Counsel, Auburn, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Scolaro, Shulman, Cohen, Fetter & Burstein, P.C., David C. Temes, Esq., of Counsel, Syracuse, NY, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

NORMAN A. MORDUE, Chief Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 2, 2008, plaintiffs Cynthia J. Koepp ("Koepp" or "plaintiff"), John D. Place ("Place" or "plaintiff"), Todd Zwigard ("T. Zwigard" or "plaintiff") and Paddington M. Zwigard ("P. Zwigard" or "plaintiff") commenced this action pursuant to Article 15 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law ("RPAPL") in New York State Supreme Court, County of Cayuga. On December 24, 2008, defendant removed the action to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Plaintiffs seek a determination of a claim to real property. According to the complaint, "the action concerns a strip of land 40 feet wide running very near the shores of Cayuga Lake formerly used as a railroad bed by the Cayuga Lake Railroad and then by successor railroad companies, including the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company".1 The former railroad property was subsequently conveyed to defendant and plaintiffs claim ownership to "parcels of land through which said 40-foot former railroad land runs".2 Plaintiffs also claim that pursuant to their deeds, they have easements over the 40-foot strip to access the western portion of their properties. In the alternative, plaintiffs seek to obtain and quiet title to said easements through adverse possession, necessity or prescription.

Prior to removal, plaintiffs filed an Order to Show Cause seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining and restraining defendant from building a permanent fence pending the termination of the action. On December 2, 2008, the Honorable Thomas G. Leone issued an ex parte order with a temporary restraining order. The Order provided, inter alia:

ORDERED, that pending the hearing of this Order to Show Cause for a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs are granted a temporary restraining order that the defendants herein be and hereby are enjoined and restrained from installing any additional fencing (not presently installed) that interferes with the use of the alleged easements.3

Presently before the Court is plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 19) and defendant's cross motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 23). Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment seeks a determination by the Court as a matter of law:

1. that plaintiffs own the property to the west of defendant's 40-foot strip;
2. that plaintiffs have rights-of-way by foot crossing the entire length of defendant's 40-foot strip;
3. that plaintiffs have three vehicular rights-of-way across defendant's 40-foot strip;
4. permanently enjoining defendant from erecting any fence, or in the alternative, permitting defendant to erect only 30 feet of fencing on the southern portion of the Koepp/Place property and no fencing on the Zwigard property.

Defendant's cross motion seeks summary judgment on the cross claims. Specifically, defendant seeks the following relief:

1. A determination that defendant holds a fee interest in the 40-foot strip;
2. A determination that, to the extent there is property west of the foot strip, plaintiffs do not own said property;
3. A determination that title to property west of the 40-foot strip is vested in defendant;
4. A determination that plaintiffs do not have any easement to cross defendant's property.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND4

The facts, unless otherwise noted, are undisputed. In 1832, David and Sally Jane Holtslander conveyed a parcel of land in Aurora, designated as lot number 34, in the Township of Scipio, to Samuel Mandell ("Mandell"). The deed contained the following description of the premises:

... west to the shore of the Cayuga Lake thence southwardly along the shore of said Lake to the north west corner of land.

In 1851, Charles and Lemina Burling conveyed a parcel of land to Peter Fort ("Fort") described as follows:

On the east by the said highway on the south by land conveyed on the 28th day of April, 1832 by Holtslander to Mandell and on the west by the said Cayuga Lake containing one and one half acre of land.
A. Deeds conveying 40-foot railroad strip

In 1872, Mandell and Fort transferred a strip of land along Cayuga Lake to Cayuga Lake Railroad Company ("Cayuga Railroad") necessary to build a railway. The strip was used as a railroad bed by Cayuga Railroad and then by successor railroad companies, including the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company ("Lehigh Railroad"). The Mandell Deed contained the following description of the conveyance to Cayuga Railroad:

Beginning in the track of the said Railroad as indicated on the Map & Survey thereof on file in the Clerk's Office of Cayuga County. Bounded on the north by the lot of Peter Fort and south by the lot of Richard Morgan, being a strip forty two feet long and forty feet wide Viz. Twenty feet in width on each side measuring from the center of said Railroad. It is agreed that the Company shall in no way interfere with the well now on the premises of said Mandell to impair its usefulness & in consideration of said Company digging a drain to connect the above mentioned well with the Lake. The stone on the premises are to belong to said Company to be used for the purpose of a rip rap wall on said premises.
Said Company shall also erect & maintain a crossing for teams over the tract to the Lake & fill in on the east side level with track the whole width of said forty two feet.

The Fort deed provided the following description of the conveyance to Cayuga Railroad:

CONVEYS, for the purposes of their said railroad and to their successors assigns forever, a strip of land across the westerly end of the Village lot, on the west side of the Main street in Aurora aforesaid, known as the Burling Lot, twenty feet in width on the west from the center line of the said rail road track, as now staked out & laid down on a map of said railroad line on file in Cayuga County Clerk's Office, and twenty feet in width on the east from said center line, also a like strip of land to wit: twenty feet on the west and twenty feet on the east side of said center line as now staked out & mapped as aforesaid across the westerly side of the homestead lot in Aurora aforesaid now owned & occupied by said Peter Fort. The grant & conveyance of the two above described pieces of land are on the express condition that said Rail Road Company shall do & perform each of the following things to wit:
First, that said Rail Road Company shall at their own expense remove the barn on the said "Burling Lot" and place same on substantial stone abutment, where said Fort may direct and fill up same as convenient in all respects for use as the same now is and shall make & grade a good & convenient wagon road between said barn & the garden fence down to the said road track and shall make & maintain a good crossing for wagons over said rail road track on each of the above described pieces of land.

Following a series of conveyances and assignments, Lehigh Railroad became the title owner of the 40-foot strip. As a quasi-public utility company, Lehigh Railroad was required to seek approval from the Interstate Commerce Commission ("ICC") if Lehigh Railroad wished to abandon operations and cease maintaining the railway. Sometime prior to 1971, Lehigh Railroad sought such approval and on or around June 3, 1971, the ICC entered a "Certificate and Order" authorizing Lehigh Railroad to abandon the Ithaca to Auburn Line. The Order indicates that the Commission considered the protest of, "the President of Wells College that the right-of-way of the line to be abandoned be disposed of by the applicant in a manner not adverse to the environmental interests of the residents in the area". On July 30, 1976, the New York Commissioner of Transportation signed a release of its preferential right to acquire the lands of Lehigh Railroad allowing the lands to be sold to private citizens. Subsequently, Lehigh Railroad filed a petition for relief under section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act with the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On July 16, 1982, pursuant to the petition, the District Court entered a Consummation Order and Final Decree. The Consummation Order provided, inter alia:

3. Upon the Consummation Date, all of the assets of the Lehigh Valley Rail Road Company would vest in and become the absolute property of the reorganized company, subject to limited exceptions not applicable in this action, "free and clear of all claims, rights, demands, interests, liens and encumbrances of every kind and character, of the Debtor, its creditors, claimants and stockbrokers, whether or not properly or timely filed and whether or not approved, acknowledged or allowed in these proceedings".

The Consummation Date was September 30, 1982 and the Order was filed with the Cayuga County Clerk's Office on October 18, 1982.

In 1984, John Holland, Mary Holland and Lida Holland Churchville purchased the Former Railroad Property adjoining 311, 323, 327 and 331 Main Street, Aurora, New York.5 The Holland's deed for the purchase of the 40-foot strip provided as follows:

All that part of the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company's Auburn & Ithaca branch right of way (40 feet wide West of Lots 25 and 26 and 30 feet wide West of Lots 27, and 28), lying Westerly of, adjacent and contiguous to Tax Lots 25, 26, 27 and 28 according to Tax Map No. 181.16 of the Village of Aurora, Cayuga County, New York; bounded on the North by the Westerly projection of the Northerly line of said Lot No. 25 and on the South by the Westerly projection of the Southerly line of said Lot No. 28,
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • In re Metroplex on the Atl., LLC
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Second Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 24 Febrero 2016
    ...in § 363(f), and the district court supplies no reason or authority for the distinction.George also cites to Koepp v. Holland, 688 F.Supp.2d 65 (N.D.N.Y.2010) and City of New York v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., No. 06–cv–793, 2008 WL 5169636 (E.D.N.Y.2008) for the proposition that property ......
  • Diaz v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • 2 Marzo 2010
  • Croy v. Ravalli Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Montana
    • 15 Julio 2020
    ...Indian Tribe v. McMahon , 934 F.3d 1076, 1081 (9th Cir. 2019) (applying exception to a 1907 land survey); Koepp v. Holland , 688 F. Supp. 2d 65, 77 n.8 (N.D.N.Y. 2010) (applying exception to maps on file in county clerk's office). That the copy was prepared by Leonard Oertli, who was the su......
  • Bikes By Olga LLC v. People
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 24 Octubre 2022
    ... ... in gross which is a personal, non assignable, noninheritable ... privilege or license'' (see, Koepp v ... Holland, 688 F.Supp.2d 65 [N.D.N.Y. 2010]). Concerning ... an easement appurtenant, a parcel of land that benefits from ... an easement is ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2015 Part IV - Demonstrative Evidence
    • 31 Julio 2015
    ...Subsidiaries v. U.S. , 564 F.Supp.2d 1276 (D.Kan., 2008), §5.400 Koch v. Mac Queen, 746 N.Y.S.2d 229 (2002), §44.301 Koepp v. Holland , 688 F.Supp.2d 65 (N.D.N.Y., 2010), §23.401 Koho v. Forest Laboratories, Inc. , 17 F.Supp.3d 1109 (W.D. Washington, 2014), §47.800 Konop v. Rosen , 425 N.J.......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2014 Part IV - Demonstrative Evidence
    • 31 Julio 2014
    ...Subsidiaries v. U.S. , 564 F.Supp.2d 1276 (D.Kan., 2008), §5.400 Koch v. Mac Queen, 746 N.Y.S.2d 229 (2002), §44.301 Koepp v. Holland , 688 F.Supp.2d 65 (N.D.N.Y., 2010), §23.401 Konop v. Rosen , 425 N.J.Super. 391, 41 A.3d 773 (2012), Overview, §§20.501, 22.100, 22.420, 22.420(a) Kooyumjia......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • 2 Agosto 2016
    ...Subsidiaries v. U.S. , 564 F.Supp.2d 1276 (D.Kan., 2008), §5.400 Koch v. Mac Queen, 746 N.Y.S.2d 229 (2002), §44.301 Koepp v. Holland , 688 F.Supp.2d 65 (N.D.N.Y., 2010), §23.401 Koho v. Forest Laboratories, Inc. , 17 F.Supp.3d 1109 (W.D. Washington, 2014), §47.800 Konop v. Rosen , 425 N.J.......
  • Evidence
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Trial Objections
    • 5 Mayo 2022
    ...able to authenticate GPS data if the witness is “knowledgeable, trained and experienced in analyzing GPS devices.” Koepp v. Holland , 688 F. Supp. 2d 65, 76-77 (N.D.N.Y. 2010). Maps and surveys which were more than 20 years old, and referenced in deeds, were admissible in evidence as ancien......
  • 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