Village of Croton-On-Hudson v. Westchester County
| Decision Date | 06 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | CROTON-ON-HUDSO,R |
| Citation | 335 N.Y.S.2d 825,30 N.Y.2d 959,287 N.E.2d 617 |
| Parties | , 287 N.E.2d 617 VILLAGE OFespondent, v. COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 38 A.D.2d 979, 331 N.Y.S.2d 883.
John J. S. Mead, White Plains (Eugene E. Russell, White Plains, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
Waldman & Waldman, New York City (Louis Waldman, Seymour M. Waldman, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.
Action was brought by village for an injunction against county which proposed to excavate and use certain land as a solid waste disposal site. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered an order denying a motion for preliminary injunction and the village appealed.
The Appellate Division reversed the order and granted the motion. It held that there was a dedication of the land for park purposes and that the land might not be diverted to a different use without specific legislative authorization, because although the deeds to the county were in fee and contained no restriction of land to park use the long continued use of land for park purposes constitute a dedication and an acceptance by implication. It was also held that the proposed use of land as a solid waste disposal site would constitute the creation of a new site requiring compliance with statute concerning acquisition, construction, etc., of solid waste disposal sites by county. The county appealed.
In the Court of Appeals, the county contended that the village had no capacity to sue, that no evidence of irreparable injury to village was alleged, that the land was not dedicated to park purposes by implication and that the excavation and filling of this area of park land did not require compliance with statute. The village alleged that it had capacity to sue, that the land having been acquired for park purposes and used as a public park for many years might not be diverted to other uses except by specific permission of State Legislature and that damage to village from denial of preliminary injunction would be truly irreparable.
Order affirmed, without costs. Question certified answered in the affirmative.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oneida Indian Nation of NY v. Cty. of Oneida
...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 parkland to use as a dump without legislative authorization). One case cited by defendants ......
-
Clover/Allen's Creek Neighborhood Ass'n v. M & F, LLC
...at 114; Cook v. Harris, 61 NY 448, 454 (1875); Vil. of Croton-On-Hudson v. Westchester County, 38 A.D.2d 979, 980 (2d Dept 1972), aff'd, 30 N.Y.2d 959; Matter of Friends Petrosino Sq. ex rel. Fleischer v. Sadik-Khan, 42 Misc.3d 226, 230 (NY Co Sup Ct 2013) ("[d]edication of parkland is impl......
-
Clover/Allen's Creek Neighborhood Ass'n v. M & F, LLC
...See also Cook v. Harris, 61 NY 448, 454 (1875); Vil. of Croton-On-Hudson v. Westchester County, 38 A.D.2d 979, 980 (2d Dept 1972), aff'd, 30 N.Y.2d 959; Matter of Friends of Petrosino Sq. ex rel. Fleischer Sadik-Khan, 42 Misc.3d 226, 230 (NY Co Sup Ct 2013) ("[d]edication of parkland is imp......
-
Ellington Const. Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Incorporated Village of New Hempstead
...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 617). In Ward v. City of New Rochelle, 20 Misc.2d 122, 197 N.Y.S.2d 64, affd. 9 A.D.2d 911, 197 N.Y.S.2d 128, affd. 8 N.Y.2d 895, 204 ......