LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

TOWN OF OYSTER BAY v COMMANDER OIL CORPORATION Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: TOWN OF OYSTER BAY, State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>I01_0110, Riparian Owner, Commander, Underwater Land, Supreme Court, Rights, Dredging, Water, Dredge, Reasonable Access, Oyster Bay, Appellate Division, York, Navigable Water, Matter, Commander Oil, Preserve Reasonable Access, Unreasonably Interfere, East Basin, Maintenance, Proceedings Consistent, Natural Condition, Chief Judge, Foreshore, Dos Permits, Respondent, Commander Oil Corporation, Appellant, Defendant Commander Oil, Amicus Curi, Petroleum Storage Facility , ContentID: 120248671

Case Documents
1 2001-10-18 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 120581
8 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 8 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COMMANDER
UNDERWATER LAND
SUPREME COURT
RIGHTS
DREDGING
WATER
DREDGE
REASONABLE ACCESS
OYSTER BAY
APPELLATE DIVISION
YORK
NAVIGABLE WATER
MATTER
COMMANDER OIL
PRESERVE REASONABLE ACCESS
UNREASONABLY INTERFERE
EAST BASIN
MAINTENANCE
PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT
NATURAL CONDITION
CHIEF JUDGE
FORESHORE
DOS PERMITS
RESPONDENT
COMMANDER OIL CORPORATION
APPELLANT
DEFENDANT COMMANDER OIL
AMICUS CURI
PETROLEUM STORAGE FACILITY


   2 No. 122
   Town of Oyster Bay,
   Respondent,
   v.
   Commander Oil Corporation, d/b/a Commander Terminals,
   Appellant, et al.,
   Defendant.
     _________________________________________________________________

   2001 NY Int. 110

   October 18, 2001

   This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
   in the New York Reports.

   Nicholas J. Damadeo, for appellant.
   Anthony J. Sabino, for respondent.
   State of New York, amicus curiæ.
     _________________________________________________________________

   KAYE, CHIEF JUDGE:

   Does a riparian owner have the right to conduct "maintenance" dredging
   of public underwater lands? We conclude that a riparian owner may
   dredge if dredging is necessary to preserve reasonable access to
   navigable water and does not unreasonably interfere with the rights of
   the owner. Because the courts below did not apply this standard, we
   reverse the Appellate Division order permanently enjoining the
   dredging, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for proceedings
   consistent with this Opinion.

                                     I.

   Since 1929, defendant Commander Oil Corporation has owned and operated
   a petroleum storage facility on land adjacent to Oyster Bay Harbor in
   Nassau County. Commander stores gasoline, diesel fuel and home heating
   oil at the facility. Plaintiff Town owns the underwater land in the
   harbor. In 1952, replacing a previous pier, Commander built the pier
   that currently extends from its land into the harbor. Barges dock at
   this pier while the oil they carry is pumped through pipes to storage
   tanks.

   Barges have mainly docked at the "west basin," the larger and deeper
   of the two basins adjoining the pier. Both the east and west basins
   become shallower as they accumulate silt deposited by a creek that
SNIPPETS:
  • Town of Oyster Bay, Respondent, v. Commander Oil Corporation, d/b/a Commander Terminals,
  • This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
  • Nicholas J. Damadeo, for appellant.
  • Anthony J. Sabino, for respondent.
  • We conclude that a riparian owner may dredge if dredging is necessary to preserve reasonable
  • Because the courts below did not apply this standard, we reverse the Appellate Division order
  • defendant Commander Oil Corporation has owned and operated a petroleum storage facility on
  • The permit authorized Commander to "maintenance dredge" to a depth of 14 feet, subject to
  • The first reduced the square footage of dredging of the east basin, in order to avoid
  • While acknowledging Commander's right of access to navigable waters, the court held that this
  • Supreme Court thereafter denied the Town's application for a permanent injunction, finding
  • This finding reflected evidence that a viable east basin might diminish the risk of oil
  • While we assumed in Hedges that the riparian owner could not complain while "the natural
  • The State of New York, as amicus curiæ, argues that shorelines are inherently mutable, owing
  • Opinion by Chief Judge Kaye.
  •    |