From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Town of Peru v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 23, 1970
35 A.D.2d 875 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)

Opinion

November 23, 1970


Appeal from a judgment entered upon a decision of the Court of Claims which dismissed the claim of the Town of Peru seeking compensation for the State's appropriation of a dock on Lake Champlain and a strip of land containing a road which provided access to the dock from Route 9. At issue is the Court of Claims' finding that the property was held in a governmental rather than a proprietary capacity, and thus no award for the taking should have been made. The controlling test in cases such as this is whether the property was restricted to the use and benefit of the residents of the municipality ( Village of Port Chester v. State of New York, 28 A.D.2d 1175; City of New Rochelle v. State of New York, 19 A.D.2d 674; Village of Canajoharie v. State of New York, 8 A.D.2d 656). There is evidence clearly indicating that the Town of Peru maintained the dock from the time of its purchase in 1928, having repaired the dock when necessary and having constructed a boat launching ramp; that the town board intended the boat dock to be for the use of the residents of the Town of Peru; that signs were erected on the road which led to the dock, saying "Restricted for the Town of Peru" and that a "guard" was "stationed" at the dock, who was allowed to keep a houseboat at the dock in return for looking after the property and keeping nonresidents off. There is no contrary evidence negating this testimony, the State limiting itself to the issue of the value of the subject property, and the Court of Claims reasoning that since streets and highways generally are held in a governmental capacity and since the dock was appurtenant to the roadway, therefore the dock as well as the road were held in a governmental capacity cannot be sustained. Nor is the State's argument that "Since the subject dock is an indispensable adjunct to navigation on Lake Champlain — which is a public highway — it follows that the dock was used in a governmental capacity" valid. Involved is a dock for pleasure craft and not passenger and cargo vessels and private piers erected on navigable waters cannot be appropriated for a purpose not in the interests of navigation without the payment of compensation ( City of New York v. Wilson Co., 278 N.Y. 86, 102; 19 N.Y. Jur., Eminent Domain, § 103; 2 Nichols, Eminent Domain [3d ed.], § 5.796, subd. [2], p. 302). Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and a new trial ordered, with costs. Reynolds, J.P., Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Sweeney, JJ., concur; Cooke, J., concurs in the following memorandum: I concur in the result. (See General Municipal Law, § 3; Central School Dist. No. 1 of Town of Colchester v. State of New York, 18 A.D.2d 943, affd. 13 N.Y.2d 1031.) The taking was for a substantially different purpose from the existing use. [ 59 Misc.2d 49.]


Summaries of

Town of Peru v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 23, 1970
35 A.D.2d 875 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)
Case details for

Town of Peru v. State

Case Details

Full title:TOWN OF PERU, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent. (Claim No…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Nov 23, 1970

Citations

35 A.D.2d 875 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)

Citing Cases

City of Albany v. State of New York

"The controlling test in cases such as this is whether the property was restricted to the use and benefit of…

Barnes v. Town Council of Perdido Beach

The quote from Warner v, City of Bay St. Louis, 408 F. Supp. 375, 381-82 (S.D. Miss. 1975), that the…