You are here: / / Trustees Were Not Required by Town Law to Turn Over to the Town Board Trust...

Trustees Were Not Required by Town Law to Turn Over to the Town Board Trust Revenues Generated by Water Management in the Town of Southampton

In a detailed decision which traces the history of a trust and statutes governing town finances in the Town of Southampton from pre-colonial times to the present, the Second Department determined that the “Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonality of the Town of Southampton” (Trustees) were not obligated by Town Law to turn over trust revenues from water management to the Town Board:

For nearly 400 years, the Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonalty of the Town of Southampton (hereinafter the Trustees or the Trust) have had the right, derived from royal land grants and patents, to control and manage the waters of the town. In the present day, the Trustees raise revenue from issuing licenses for activities including commercial fishing, charging permit fees for seasonal boat docking, dock and bulkhead construction, and dredging, and selling sand excavated from Mecox Bay. The Trustees deposit their revenues into several bank accounts, which, at the time this action was commenced, had an aggregate balance of close to $1 million. On this appeal, we are called upon to determine whether Town Law § 64(1) requires the Trustees to turn over control of their revenues to the Town Board of the Town of Southampton (hereinafter the Town Board) and whether the expenditure of such revenues must therefore comply with the same statutes which govern town finances and expenditures. We conclude that Town Law § 64(1) does not require the Trustees to turn over control of their revenues to the Town Board, and that the statutes governing town finances and expenditures relied upon by the plaintiffs are inapplicable to the Trust. Gessin v Throne-Holst, 2015 NY Slip Op 06885, 2nd Dept 9-23-15

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT HOME OWNER DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT HAVE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION WHICH ALLEGEDLY RESULTED IN PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED AN AFFIDAVIT FROM A NOTICE WITNESS WHO WAS NOT DISCLOSED PRIOR TO THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION DEFENDANT RECEIVED A LETTER ALLEGEDLY REQUESTING THAT SURVEILLANCE VIDEO BEFORE AND AFTER PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL BE PRESERVED AS THERE WAS NO PROOF OF MAILING, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED FOR SPOLIATION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3126 (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A CLAIM DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFY THE LOCATION OF THE SLIP AND FALL, RENDERING THE FILING OF THE CLAIM UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
A PRETRIAL RULING ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IS AN UNAPPEALABLE ADVISORY RULING; THE MOTION IN LIMINE SEEKING TO SET A LIMIT ON THE VALUE OF AN LLC WAS ACTUALLY AN UNTIMELY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
THE INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THE RPAPL 1304 90-DAY NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE DID NOT VIOLATE THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).
COURTS OF EQUITY HAVE BROAD POWERS TO ACT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FORECLOSURE IS EQUITABLE IN NATURE, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE SECOND DEPT DETERMINED DEFENDANT PROVED HE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND 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

Relation Back Doctrine Did Not Apply to Causes of Action in Amended Complaint—Amendment... Requirements of Adverse Possession by “Tacking” Explained (Not Met...