People v. Miller
| Decision Date | 25 October 1932 |
| Citation | 184 N.E. 103,260 N.Y. 585 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Richard MILLER et al., Respondents. PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Arthur BURNETT et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal, in each of the above-entitled actions, from a judgment, entered June 10, 1932, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (235 App. Div. 226, 257 N. Y. S. 300), reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term, a jury having been waived, and directing a dismissal of the complaint upon new findings. The actions were brought against the individual defendants, Richard Miller and Arthur Burnett, to recover a penalty from each for taking soft shell clams from the lands under the waters of Mecox Bay in the town of Southampton, Suffolk county, in alleged violation of section 322 of the Conservation Law (Consol. Laws, c. 65). The question was whether section 322 of the Conservation Law applied to the waters of Mecox Bay by reason of the fact that the lands under such waters had been granted to the town of Southampton under two royal charters, namely, the Andross Charter, dated November 1, 1676, and the Dongan Charter, dated December 6, 1686. The Appellate Division held that the ownership and control of the lands under the waters of Mecox Bay are vested in the town and that the Legislature is without power to enact any law concerning the taking of shellfish from the lands under such waters.
John J. Bennett, Jr., Atty. Gen. (Robert P. Beyer, of New York City, and Peter J. Brancato, of Brooklyn, of counsel), for appellant.
George W. Percy, of Southampton, for respondents Richard Miller and Arthur Burnett.
Lucius H. Beers, Sherman Baldwin, and Woodson D. Scott, all of New York City, for respondent The Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonalty of the Town of Southampton.
Judgments affirmed, with costs.
CROUCH, J., not sitting.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rottenberg v. Edwards
...see, also, People ex rel. Howell v. Jessup, 160 N.Y. 249, 54 N.E. 682; People v. Miller, 235 App.Div. 226, 257 N.Y.S. 300, affd. 260 N.Y. 585, 184 N.E. 103; cf. People v. James H. Rambo, Inc., 36 N.Y.2d 1008, 374 N.Y.S.2d 612, 337 N.E.2d 126). The townships' ownership and control over these......
-
Hassan v. Town of East Hampton
...§ 130(18)(e); Sloup v. Town of Islip, 78 Misc.2d 366, 356 N.Y.S.2d 742, 745-46 (Sup.Ct. Suffolk Co. 1975). See also, People v. Miller, 260 N.Y. 585, 184 N.E. 103 (1932); Seacoast Products, Inc. v. Glen Cove, 50 A.D.2d 579, 374 N.Y.S.2d 702, 704 (2nd Dept. 1975). Thus, the adoption of the sh......
-
People v. Johnson
...This was recognized in People v. Miller, 2d Dept. 1932, 235 App.Div. 226, 232, 257 N.Y.S. 300, 306, affirmed without opinion, 1932, 260 N.Y. 585, 184 N.E. 103, where, in another connection, the court accepted the argument that 'clams are not migratory; * * * and cannot be classified as fera......
-
State v. Trustees of Freeholders and Commonalty of Town of Southampton
...powers and, when such is done, a compensable taking may occur (see People v. Miller, 235 App.Div. 226, 231, 257 N.Y.S. 300, affd. 260 N.Y. 585, 184 N.E. 103; People ex rel. Howell v. Jessup, 160 N.Y. 249, 268). This is specifically recognized by the ECL which exempts from State ownership al......