Opinion
June 20, 1967
Cross appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims which made an award to the claimants for consequential damage to their property. Claimants, Tucci and Terenzi, are the owners of two adjacent lots, each having a frontage of 50 feet on Grant Street in the Town of Rye, Westchester County, and having a depth of 136.8 feet. On this plot they operated a part-time business of manufacturing, displaying, and selling cemetery memorial stones. The construction of a portion of the County Westchester Expressway necessitated the appropriation of a portion of Grant Street which resulted in transversing it. At the easterly boundary of the expressway appropriation at Grant Street, a chain link type fence was erected which was extended along the westerly boundary of claimants' parcel. At some distance easterly of this fence, there was erected a wooden barrier across the width of Grant Street to warn the traveling public that Grant Street dead-ended at this point. After the erection of the wooden barrier, claimants' frontage on Grant Street was reduced to 44 feet of frontage. Within this frontage of 44 feet, claimants had two curb cuts. The entire frontage of the westerly lot was destroyed along with an additional six feet of the easterly lot. There was no direct taking by the State of any part of claimants' land. Claimants contend that the closing of 56 feet of frontage of Grant Street by the erection of the barrier resulted in a de facto appropriation of claimants' fee and easement in, to and over Grant Street. Claimants obtained title to the plot through a tax deed from the Town of Rye in 1949. There is no evidence in the record to the effect that claimants had title to any portion to Grant Street which the trial court found to be a public street. The trial court based its award on the ground that claimants' free use of this property was interfered with by the State by virtue of the manner in which the State erected the permanent barrier, which the court found could have been erected at right angles to and at the end of claimants' property instead of at the sharp diagonal angle at which it was erected. The State, in the exercise of its police power, has the right to control traffic and public travel on public highways even though abutting owners may be adversely affected. ( Jones Beach Blvd. Estate v. Moses, 268 N.Y. 362; Segal v. Village of Scarsdale, 17 Misc.2d 27.) If the State, acting under its authority, closes a street or a part thereof, it must leave to an abutting owner a means of suitable access, or else the owner must be compensated. ( Selig v. State of New York, 10 N.Y.2d 34; Holmes v. State of New York, 279 App. Div. 489; Crear v. State of New York, 2 A.D.2d 735.) The owner of a commercial property abutting a highway does not have the right of direct access from every point along the highway. Right of access means reasonable ingress to and egress from abutting land to a system of public highways, subject to reasonable traffic regulation. ( Northern Lights Shopping Center v. State of New York, 20 A.D.2d 415, affd. 15 N.Y.2d 688. ) Where ample access is provided, such access cannot be deemed unsuitable merely because it is more difficult or inconvenient to enter or leave the premises. ( Bopp v. State of New York, 19 N.Y.2d 368.) While it may be that claimants have suffered damage or loss of business by reason of the existence of the barrier and the loss of frontage, suitable access did exist over the remaining 44 feet of frontage and the manner in which the State exercised its police power in deciding the position of the barrier is not compensable, since such decision was not arbitrary or unreasonable. The State's obligation to claimants is fulfilled if their property has a reasonably adequate means of access to and from Grant Street. The record and exhibits support the conclusion that the claimants were afforded an adequate and suitable means of access. ( Red Apple Rest. v. State of New York, 27 A.D.2d 417.) Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and claim dismissed, without costs. Gibson, P.J., Herlihy, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Staley, Jr., J.