Lane Abutting Properties Was Not Owned by Property-Owners
The Third Department upheld Supreme Court’s determination that the owners of property which abutted a street or lane did not privately own the lane, because no map was referenced in the relevant deeds, and because of the public use of the lane for more than ten years and maintenance of the street by the village:
Fiebelkorn [a leading case] and its progeny stand for the general proposition that “[w]hen an owner of property sells a lot with reference to a map, and the map shows that the lot abuts upon a street, the conveyance presumptively conveys fee ownership to the center of the street on which the lot abuts, subject to the rights of other lot owners and their invitees to use the entire area of the street for highway purposes”…. This general proposition of law is of no aid to plaintiffs, however, in view of the fact that, among other things, plaintiffs’ deeds contain no reference to a map. * * *
Here, plaintiffs argue that the lane cannot be deemed a village street because (a) it does not qualify as a public street by dedication (see Village Law § 6-610), (b) it does not appear on the state Department of Transportation’s inventory of local roads lying within the Village’s jurisdiction, and (c) the Village “has never maintained” it. Plaintiffs’ dedication argument is misplaced because…dedication is not the sole means by which a village street may be created (see Village Law § 6-626). … Kingsley v Village of Cooperstown, 515535, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13