Village of Croton-On-Hudson v. Westchester County, CROTON-ON-HUDSO
Decision Date | 31 March 1972 |
Docket Number | CROTON-ON-HUDSO,A |
Parties | VILLAGE OFppellant, v. COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER, Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before MARTUSCELLO, Acting P.J., and LATHAM, SHAPIRO, CHRIST and BENJAMIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action for an injunction, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered March 22, 1972, which denied its motion for a preliminary injunction.
Order reversed, without costs, and motion granted.
In our opinion, the record establishes that the approximately 20 acres of land which the defendant County proposes to excavate and use as a solid waste disposal site were acquired for public park purposes by a special borrowing and have been used as such for over 45 years. While the deeds into the County are in fee and contain no restriction of the land to park use and while there does not appear to have been a formal dedication of the land to such use (cf. Pearlman v. Anderson, 62 Misc.2d 24, 307 N.Y.S.2d 1014, affd.35 A.D.2d 544, 314 N.Y.S.2d 173), we think the long-continued use of the land for park purposes constitutes a dedication and acceptance by implication (cf. People v. Loehfelm, 102 N.Y. 1, 3--4, 5 N.E. 783, 784; Cook v. Harris,61 N.Y. 448, 453--454). The ultimate control over the uses of public parks is in the Legislature (cf. Matter of Lake George Steamboat Co. v. Blais, 30 N.Y.2d 48, 330 N.Y.S.2d 336, 281 N.E.2d 147 (dec. Feb. 10, 1972)) and this public park land may not be diverted to a different use without specific legislative authorization (cf. Miller v. City of New York, 15 N.Y.2d 34, 37, 255 N.Y.S.2d 78, 79, 203 N.E.2d 478, 479; Incorporated Vil. of Lloyd Harbor v. Town of Huntington, 4 N.Y.2d 182, 190, 173 N.Y.S.2d 553, 557, 149 N.Ed.2d 851, 854). Moreover, we think that the proposed excavation and filling of this area of park land would constitute the creation of a new solid waste disposal site and that compliance with section 226--b of the County Law was required.
He preliminary injunction will not affect, of course, the County's use of the existing land-fill site.
Settle order on two days' written notice.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Oneida Indian Nation of NY v. Cty. of Oneida
...down as violative of state constitutional provision forbidding counties from incurring debts); Village of Crotonon-Hudson v. County of Westchester, 38 A.D.2d 979, 331 N.Y.S.2d 883 (2d Dep't.), aff'd, 30 N.Y.2d 959, 335 N.Y.S.2d 825, 287 N.E.2d 617 (1972) (county enjoined from diverting park......
-
Clover/Allen's Creek Neighborhood Ass'n v. M & F, LLC
... ... , E2021000033, E2021000039 Supreme Court, Monroe County March 8, 2023 ... ... Attorneys for ... (Westchester Co Sup Ct 1962), aff'd , 18 A.D.2d ... 674 (2d Dept ... 448, 454 (1875); Vil. of Croton-On-Hudson v. Westchester ... County , 38 A.D.2d 979, 980 (2d Dept ... village had 16 acres by deed, but still needed another 16 to ... ...
-
Clover/Allen's Creek Neighborhood Ass'n v. M & F, LLC
... ... , E2018007330, E201807331 Supreme Court, Monroe County September 28, 2022 ... Unpublished ... N.Y.S.2d 313, 315 (Westchester Co Sup Ct 1962), ... aff'd , 18 A.D.2d 674 (2d Dept ... of ... Croton-On-Hudson v. Westchester County , 38 A.D.2d 979, ... 980 (2d Dept ... the required report from village official) [Index #: ... E2018000937 - Docket # 673, p ... ...
-
Ellington Const. Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Incorporated Village of New Hempstead
...Foreal Homes v. Incorporated Vil. of Muttontown, 128 A.D.2d 585, 586-587, 512 N.Y.S.2d 849; Vil. of Croton-On-Hudson v. County of Westchester, 38 A.D.2d 979, 980, 331 N.Y.S.2d 883, affd. 30 N.Y.2d 959, 335 N.Y.S.2d 825, 287 N.E.2d In Ward v. City of New Rochelle, 20 Misc.2d 122, 197 N.Y.S.2......