Dolphin Lane Associates, Ltd. v. Town of Southampton
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtJones, J.
We hold that it was error as a matter of law for the lower courts in this case to ground determination of the location of the high-water line along the southern shore of Shinnecock Bay and thus the location of the northern boundary of appellant’s property in the Town of Southampton by reference to the type-of-grass test introduced by respondent town.
It is not seriously disputed in formulation that the northern boundary line of appellant’s property facing on Shinnecock Bay is the high-water line. The lower courts so held and we concur. The sharp dispute between the parties, joined by others…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Heyert v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1966
- Trustees of the Freeholders & Commonalty of Southampton v. Mecox Bay Oyster Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1889
3Cited by11 opinions
- Poster v. StroughAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Rottenberg v. EdwardsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- Katz v. Village of SouthamptonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Elwood v. City of New YorkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1978
- Trustees of Southampton v. HeilnerNew York Supreme Court · 1975
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.