Seaview at Amagansett, Ltd. v. Trs. of Freeholders & Commonalty of E. Hampton

• Decision Date: 21 September 2016
• Citation: Seaview at Amagansett, Ltd. v. Trs. of Freeholders & Commonalty of E. Hampton, 142 A.D.3d 1066, 38 N.Y.S.3d 212, 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 6073 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
• Parties: SEAVIEW AT AMAGANSETT, LTD., et al., respondents, v. TRUSTEES OF FREEHOLDERS AND COMMONALTY OF TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON, et al., appellants, et al., defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

142 A.D.3d 1066

38 N.Y.S.3d 212

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06073

SEAVIEW AT AMAGANSETT, LTD., et al., respondents,

v.TRUSTEES OF FREEHOLDERS AND COMMONALTY OF TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON, et al., appellants, et al., defendants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Sept. 21, 2016.

Anthony B. Tohill, P.C., Riverhead, NY, for appellant Trustees of Freeholders and Commonalty of Town of East Hampton, and Goldstein, Rikon, Rikon & Houghton, P.C., New York, NY (Michael Rikon and Jamie Sinclair of counsel), for appellant Town of East Hampton (one brief filed).

Esseks, Hefter & Angel, LLP, Riverhead, NY (Stephen R. Angel, Anthony C. Pasca, and Nancy Silverman of counsel), for respondents Seaview at Amagansett, Ltd., Dunes at Napeague Property Owners Association, Inc., Tides Homeowners Association, Inc., Whalers Lane Homeowners Association, Inc., Ocean Estates Property Owners Association, Inc., Robert Higgins, Robert Cristofaro, and Robert Cooperman.

Marc Helie, East Hampton, NY, respondent pro se.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, ROBERT J. MILLER, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.

In an action, inter alia, to quiet title pursuant to RPAPL article 15, the defendants Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonalty of the Town of East Hampton and the Town of East Hampton separately appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Garguilo, J.), entered June 25, 2015, as, upon reargument, vacated its original determination in an order entered September 11, 2014, granting those branches of their separate motions which were for summary judgment dismissing portions of the first and third causes of action insofar as asserted against each of them and otherwise denying those motions, and thereupon denied their separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

This action involves the issue of use of an ocean beach in the Town of East Hampton which is on or adjacent to properties owned by the plaintiffs. In 2009, the plaintiffs commenced this action pursuant to RPAPL article 15 for a judgment declaring that they are the owners in fee simple absolute of those portions of the disputed properties that extend to the mean high-water mark of the ocean, and declaring that the defendants are not entitled to allow residents of the Town or nonresidents to use the beachfront area or vehicles on that part of the plaintiffs' property. The plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief based on theories of nuisance and trespass. In the order appealed from, upon reargument, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the separate motions of the defendants Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonalty of the Town of East Hampton (hereinafter the Trustees) and the Town (hereinafter together the Town defendants) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them. The Town defendants appeal.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the Town defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action interposed pursuant to RPAPL article 15. In an action to quiet title pursuant to RPAPL article 15, the movant must establish that it holds title, or that the nonmovant's title claim is without merit (see 5000, Inc. v. Hudson One, Inc., 130 A.D.3d 676, 13 N.Y.S.3d 507 ; Clochessy v. Gagnon, 58 A.D.3d 1008, 1009–1010, 870 N.Y.S.2d 639 ; M. Parisi & Son Constr. Co., Inc. v. Adipietro, 21 A.D.3d 454, 455, 800 N.Y.S.2d 723 ). Here, the Town defendants failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the plaintiffs' title claim lacks merit. In particular, the Town defendants failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that any of the conveyances comprising the plaintiffs' chain of title were invalid, as there are triable issues of fact with respect to that issue. Accordingly, contrary to the Town defendants' contention, they were not entitled to summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiffs did not own the disputed area (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 ).

Moreover, the Town defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they are legally permitted to allow individuals to use the disputed area by virtue of a certain reservation clause contained in one of the deeds allegedly comprising the...