Legal Opinion

Dolphin Lane Associates, Ltd. v. Town of Southampton

New York Court of Appeals

Decided July 2, 1975PublishedCited by 11 opinions

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

  1. Heyert v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1966
  2. Trustees of the Freeholders & Commonalty of Southampton v. Mecox Bay Oyster Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1889

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Poster v. StroughAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
  2. Rottenberg v. EdwardsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
  3. Katz v. Village of SouthamptonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
  4. Elwood v. City of New YorkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1978
  5. Trustees of Southampton v. HeilnerNew York Supreme Court · 1975

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API