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
WHERE CONVICTIONS UNDER MULITPLE INDICTMENTS COME UP FOR REVIEW IN THE SAME SORA HEARING, THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF SEX OFFENDERS SHOULD PREPARE A SINGLE RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT ENCOMPASSING ALL THE OFFENSES (SECOND DEPT).
Court Properly Declined to Exercise Jurisdiction Over Child Custody/Access Matters Because the Children No Longer Had a Sufficient Connection with New York State
School Not Liable for Three-Year-Old’s Failure to Get Off the Bus After Arrival at the School—Child Had Not Yet Entered the Orbit of the School’s Authority—Although School Voluntarily Undertook the Duty to Determine the Whereabouts of Absent Students, the Parents Were Not Aware of that Policy and Therefore Could Not Have Relied On It
ALTHOUGH IT WAS ERROR TO DENY THE DEFENSE REQUEST FOR A RODRIGUEZ HEARING BASED UPON THE PROSECUTOR’S ASSERTION THE COMPLAINANT AND THE DEFENDANT KNEW EACH OTHER, THE TRIAL TESTIMONY DEMONSTRATED THE COMPLAINANT AND DEFENDANT IN FACT KNEW EACH OTHER; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE COURT OF APPEALS REQUIRES THAT THE IDENTIFICATION ISSUE BE RESOLVED BEFORE TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
NEW YORK DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST A SPOUSE OR FORMER SPOUSE STEMMING FROM EVENTS DURING THE MARRIAGE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE SUBCONTRACTOR HAD THE RIGHT FILE A SECOND MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE ACTION TO FORECLSOE ON THE LIEN RAISED THE SAME ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED IN A PRIOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, THE RES JUDICATA DOCTRINE PRECLUDED THE SECOND ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE SUSPENDED FATHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS WITHOUT HOLDING A “BEST INTERESTS” HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​
Delaware Pleading Requirements Not Met in Shareholders’ Derivative Action

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;...