The common law "public trust doctrine" broadly states that certain resources are reserved to the public and that the government is required to protect those public resources. In New York State, before parkland can be used for non-park use, the legislature must pass a bill allowing a municipality to use parkland for a purpose other than as a park, for example as a storage facility. Recently, in Capruso v. Village of Kings Point, 23 NY3d 631, 2014 NY Slip Op 04228, the Court of Appeals affirmed the doctrine and the special place parkland has because it is reserved for the public and is held in trust for the public by the municipal authority when held in trust for the public.
The Kings Point Park, in Great Neck, has been dedicated parkland since the 1920s when it was acquired by the Village of Kings Point. Since 1938 the park has been maintained by the Great Neck Park District on behalf of the village. In 1946 the village began using a portion of the park, called the Western Corner, for storage of highway materials and supplies and a pistol range for the local police. The use of the Western Corner in this manner was approved by the state legislature in 1966. The village has also added a garage and a storage facility for road salt in the Western Corner.
In 2008, without seeking legislative approval, the village adopted a proposal to use approximately 12,000 s/f for a Department of Public Works facility, which would have included a garage and offices as well as requiring an asphalt roadway be built through the park.
The plaintiffs, three homeowners who live near Kings Point Park commenced this action in 2009 seeking to enjoin the defendants from developing the proposed Public Works project as a violation of the common law "public trust doctrine." The State of New York sued the Village of Kings Point seeking the same relief.
After discovery was completed, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment and the court granted the motion, permanently enjoining the village from proceeding with the public works project without specific approval from the state legislature. The appellate division affirmed the supreme court's decision and the court of appeals affirmed.
The defendants concede that the use violated the "public trust doctrine," but claimed that the claims of the state on the plaintiffs are time-barred. Defendants claimed that their desired use was only an expansion of the use approved in 1946 and it would be "nothing more than a change in the nature and scope of an ongoing non-park use" and therefore should have been challenged within six years of the 1946 approval.
However, due to the difference in the nature and scope of the expanded use from the current non-park use the court determined that the claims were not barred by the Statute of Limitations.
Finally, the court determined that the ongoing trespass and use of the park in a non- park manner extended the statute of limitations. "It would be unreasonable to expect ordinary citizens who use parks to know whether a particular use by a municipality has received approval by the state legislature and whether municipal infrastructure located on parkland is intended to serve the park or public areas outside of the park." The statute of limitations is extended so long as the use is ongoing and the violation remains, without being barred by the Stature of Limitations.
Steven Glassberg is the founder of Glassberg & Associates, LLC, New York, N.Y. and Port Washington, N.Y. Tags: