State v. Lang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State v. Lang

52 A.D.2d 921, 383 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12765

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 17, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 52 A.D.2d 921 (State v. Lang) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Lang, 52 A.D.2d 921, 383 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12765 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action inter alia to enjoin defendant from altering the state of tidal wetlands, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered November 10, 1975, as (1) denied its motion for partial summary judgment and (2) granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. The record substantiates that defendant is the owner of a one-acre parcel which is completely surrounded by partially improved nonwetland property. Defendant’s one-acre plot is only artificially connected to tidal waters by means of a ditch, culvert and pipe. Accordingly, the parcel is not a tidal wetland, as that term is defined in section 25-0103 of the Environmental Conservation Law. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur. [84 Misc 2d 106.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action inter alia to enjoin defendant from altering the state of tidal wetlands, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered November 10, 1975, as (1) denied its motion for partial summary judgment and (2) granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. The record substantiates that defendant is the owner of a one-acre parcel which is completely surrounded by partially improved nonwetland property. Defendant’s one-acre plot is only artificially connected to tidal waters by means of a ditch, culvert and pipe. Accordingly, the parcel is not a tidal wetland, as that term is defined in section 25-0103 of the Environmental Conservation Law. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur. [84 Misc 2d 106.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 921, 383 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lang-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack