You are here: / / HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATIONS IN THE HAMPTONS DEMONSTRATED OWNERSHIP OF...
, ,

HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATIONS IN THE HAMPTONS DEMONSTRATED OWNERSHIP OF THE BEACH TO THE HIGH WATER MARK; THE TOWNS THEREFORE COULD NOT ISSUE PERMITS ALLOWING VEHICLES ON THE BEACH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this action to quiet title pursuant to RPAPL Article 15,, determined the homeowners’ associations demonstrated ownership of about 4000 feet of beach in the Hamptons on Long Island. Therefore the towns could not allow vehicles to park on the beach:

In an action pursuant to RPAPL article 15, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating, inter alia, the boundaries of the subject property with “common certainty” (see RPAPL 1515[2] … ). Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, we find that Seaview, Dunes, Tides, and Whalers established their title claims by a preponderance of the evidence, and that Ocean established its title claim by a preponderance of the evidence with respect to the westernmost portion of its property. At trial, the plaintiffs produced a land title expert who testified to the homeowners associations’ chains of title to their respective properties. Specifically, that expert testified, based on documentary evidence, that Seaview, Dunes, Tides, and Whalers owned fee simple title to their respective properties, extending to the mean high-water mark of the Atlantic Ocean. The expert also testified, in relevant part, that Ocean owned fee simple title extending to the mean high-water mark of the Atlantic Ocean, as to the westernmost 400 linear feet of its property. The plaintiffs produced all of the deeds in those respective chains of title, beginning with the Benson Deed, which is common to all of the homeowners associations’ chains of title. Based on the foregoing evidence, the homeowners associations established, to the extent previously indicated, that they owned title in fee simple absolute to the disputed portion of their respective properties (see RPAPL 1515[2] … ). Seaview at Amagansett, Ltd. v Trustees of Freeholders & Commonalty of Town of E. Hampton, 2021 NY Slip Op 00584, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

You might also like
Court Has the Discretion to Deny a Motion to Change Venue Where the Statutory Time-Limits for the Demand and Motion Are Not Met—Discretion Not Abused Here
Family Court Did Not Have Sufficient Information to Terminate Father’s Visitation
Plaintiff Should Have Been Allowed to Add Doctor to Medical Malpractice Action After the Statute of Limitations Had Run—All the Relation-Back Criteria Were Met
NO EVIDENCE THE FATAL ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY DRIVING TOO FAST FOR THE CONDITIONS; PETITIONER WAS TRAVELLING BELOW THE SPEED LIMIT WHEN HIS CAR STRUCK A POTHOLE, CAUSING A MECHANICAL FAILURE (SECOND DEPT).
CAUSES OF ACTION FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND AN ACCOUNTING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; FAILURE TO TRANSFER ASSETS ALLEGED A CONTINUING WRONG AND PAYMENTS WHICH ALLEGEDLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE DURING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PERIOD WERE ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT).
PRODUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL NOTE AND ENDORSEMENTS WAS “MATERIAL AND NECESSARY” TO THE DETERMINATION WHETHER THE BANK HAS STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
“BEACH 12,” A NONPARTY WHICH BECAME TITLE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AFTER PLAINTIFF FILED THE NOTICE OF PENDENCY, WAS ENTITLED TO INTERVENE IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS OF RIGHT; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
RATHER THAN DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE NECESSARY PARTIES, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DIRECTED THAT THE NECESSARY PARTIES BE SUMMONED; THE COURT’S POWER TO SUMMON NECESSARY PARTIES IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; ONLY THE SUMMONED NECESSARY PARTIES THEMSELVES HAVE STANDING TO RAISE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE (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

DEFENDANT AND HIS SON WERE REPRESENTED BY THE SAME ATTORNEY; DEFENDANT ALLEGEDLY... THE ESTATE OF THE HUSBAND WAS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION;...