You are here: / / Public Access Easement to Recreation Area Granted; Public Hearing Not ...
,

Public Access Easement to Recreation Area Granted; Public Hearing Not Required

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Stein, the Third Department upheld the grant of a petition pursuant to the Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) to acquire a public access easement over private land abutting a recreation area on land owned by a hydroelectric facility. The condemnation proceeding was triggered when the owner of the private property abutting the recreation area blocked roads which for years had provided public access to the recreation area. In a lengthy and detailed opinion, the Third Department explained the applicable procedures pursuant to the EDPL and why statutory exemptions to the public hearing requirement of the EDPL applied in this case.  In the Matter of Eagle Creek Land Resources, LLC, et al v Woodstone Lake Development, LLC, 514046, 3rd Dept, 5-9-13

 

You might also like
TRESPASS AND NUISANCE ACTIONS BASED UPON WATER RUNOFF FROM NEIGHBORING PROPERTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).
HERE THE STUDENT WITH DISABILITIES WAS UNSUPERVISED IN GYM CLASS WHEN SHE WAS INJURED; THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT SUCCESSFULLY EXCLUDED EVIDENCE THAT MORE SUPERVISION OF THE STUDENT WAS NEEDED BECAUSE SUCH EVIDENCE PURPORTEDLY CONFLICTED WITH THE STUDENT’S “AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 504 PLAN” (WHICH DID NOT CALL FOR EXTRA SUPERVISION) AND THEREFORE EXTRA SUPERVISION WOULD HAVE AMOUNTED TO DISCRIMINATION; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT REJECTED THE ARGUMENT FINDING THAT THE 504 PLAN DID NOT ACT AS A CEILING FOR THE LEVEL OF SUPERVISION TO BE AFFORDED THE STUDENT AND ORDERED A NEW TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).
Bank’s Failure to Strictly Comply With the Filing Deadline in RPAPL 1306 Required Dismissal of the Complaint Seeking Foreclosure
Although Title Had Not Yet Formally Passed to the Driver/Owner, the Vehicle Was Covered as a “Newly Acquired” Vehicle Under the Terms of the Policy
Intra-Agency Exemption Applied to FOIL Request About AIG Prosecution
THE ELICITATION OF TESTIMONY FROM A DETECTIVE THAT DEFENDANT INVOKED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND HIS RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION WAS SUBJECT TO A HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS AND DID NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE ABSENCE OF A CURATIVE INSTRUCTION RENDERED THE ERROR REVERSIBLE (THIRD DEPT).
THE INSTALLATION OF LIGHT FIXTURES ON A PARTY WALL EXCEEDED ANY EASEMENT THAT MIGHT ARISE FROM THE EXISTENCE OF A PARTY WALL.
AN AGREEMENT TO PAY COMMISSIONS CAN BE PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR AND THEREFORE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS 3RD DEPT.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Presumption of Validity of Property Tax Assessment Rebutted Investigatory Powers of NYS Commission on Public Integrity Explained​