Village of Croton-On-Hudson v. County of Westchester

38 A.D.2d 979, 331 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5047
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 31, 1972
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 38 A.D.2d 979 (Village of Croton-On-Hudson v. County of Westchester) 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
Village of Croton-On-Hudson v. County of Westchester, 38 A.D.2d 979, 331 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5047 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Opinion

In an action for an injunction, plaintiff appeals from an the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered March 22, 1972, [980]*980which 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, affd. 35 A D 2d 544), 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; 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) 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; Incorporated Vil. of Lloyd Harbor v. Town of Huntington, 4 N Y 2d 182, 190). 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. The preliminary injunction will not affect, of course, the county’s use of the existing land-fill site. Settle order on two days’ written notice. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Shapiro, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Related

61 Crown St., LLC v. City of Kingston Common Council
206 A.D.3d 1316 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Goldfarb v. Ramapo
2018 NY Slip Op 8933 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Friends of Square v. Sadik-Khan
42 Misc. 3d 226 (New York Supreme Court, 2013)
Chateau Rive Corp. v. Enclave Development Associates
22 A.D.3d 447 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Riverview Partners v. City of Peekskill
273 A.D.2d 455 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Opn. No.
New York Attorney General Reports, 1996
Lazore v. Board of Trustees
191 A.D.2d 764 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Ellington Construction Corp. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Inc.
152 A.D.2d 365 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Informal Opinion No.
New York Attorney General Reports, 1984
Oneida Indian Nation of New York State v. Oneida
434 F. Supp. 527 (N.D. New York, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 A.D.2d 979, 331 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/village-of-croton-on-hudson-v-county-of-westchester-nyappdiv-1972.