ROBERT N. PLESS, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. TOWN OF ROYALTON ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
81 N.Y.2d 1047, 619 N.E.2d 392, 601 N.Y.S.2d 455 (1993).
June 10, 1993
4 No. 123 (1993 N.Y. Int. 131)
Decided June 10, 1993
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Submitted by William J. Love, Jr., for Appellants.
David E. Seaman, for Respondents.
_________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
The issue before us is whether a municipality is estopped from
certifying a road as abandoned due to non-use for six years (Highway
Law § 205 (1)) because, during the relevant period, it certified that
the road was a highway for purposes of obtaining State highway funds.
It is not disputed that from 1982 through 1987 the Town included the
parts of the road at issue in its calculation of Town highway miles to
the State for highway maintenance funding. On October 20, 1987, the
Town issued a Certificate of Abandonment for this road because it
determined that the road had not been traveled or used as a highway
during the prior six years. Plaintiffs, owners of property abutting
this road, by their appeals have alleged that under these
circumstances the Town should be estopped from issuing the Certificate
of Abandonment.(n 1) The Appellate Division rejected this argument
and affirmed the judgment for the Town. We agree.
Although plaintiffs claim that the respondents should be estopped from
certifying the road as abandoned, they have failed to establish that a
declaration of abandonment is contradictory to the certification for
state aid, have failed to allege reliance on the Town's apparently
inconsistent positions and have failed to provide any reason why
estoppel should be invoked against the Town. "We have held many times
that estoppel is not available against a government agency in the
exercise of its governmental functions" (Mtr. of Daleview Nursing Home
v Axelrod, 62 NY2d 30, 33 (citations omitted)). The rare exception to
this general rule requires an "unusual factual situation" (id.,
SNIPPETS:
RESPONDENTS.
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
The issue before us is whether a municipality is estopped from certifying a road as abandoned
On October 20, 1987, the Town issued a Certificate of Abandonment for this road because it
Plaintiffs, owners of property abutting this road, by their appeals have alleged that under
Although plaintiffs claim that the respondents should be estopped from certifying the road as
"We have held many times that estoppel is not available against a government agency in the
of Daleview Nursing Home v Axelrod, 62 NY2d 30, 33 (citations omitted)).
The rare exception to this general rule requires an "unusual factual situation" (id., quoting
of Hamptons Hosp.
Center v Moore, 52 NY2d 88, 93 n 1).
Such a situation is not presented in the case at bar.
to apply the doctrine of estoppel in this case would effectively require municipalities to
At trial and before the Appellate Division, plaintiffs unsuccessfully challenged the
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Hancock, Bellacosa and Smith concur.
|
