16.8 A. Property Acquired For Park Use

• Jurisdiction: New York

A. Property Acquired for Park Use

Property acquired for park use, whether by the state, public authorities or municipal subdivisions, is acquired and held as “trust” property.³⁰⁰⁹ The trust nature of the acquisition limits the use by the condemnor as well as the property’s alienation. Ordinarily, a municipality may alienate property previously acquired by eminent domain by the act of its own legislative body when its public use is no longer required.³⁰¹⁰ Where parklands are involved, the state must adopt a special enactment permitting change of use or sale.³⁰¹¹

--------

Notes:

^[3009] . Williams v. Gallatin, 229 N.Y. 248 (1920); Porter v. Int’l Bridge Co., 200 N.Y. 234 (1910); Ackerman v. Steisel, 104 A.D.2d 940, 480 N.Y.S.2d 556 (2d Dep’t 1984), aff’d, 66 N.Y.2d 833, 489 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1985); Aldrich v. City of New York, 208 Misc. 930, 145 N.Y.S.2d 732 (Sup. Ct., Queens Co. 1955), aff’d, 2 A.D.2d 760, 154 N.Y.S.2d 427 (2d Dep’t 1956); Sebring v. Quackenbush, 120 Misc. 609, 199 N.Y.S. 245 (Sup. Ct., Steuben Co. 1923), aff’d, 214 A.D. 758, 209 N.Y.S. 918 (4th Dep’t 1925).

^[3010] . N.Y. County Law § 215(5); see Nassau County Admin. Code art. 1.

^[3011] . Ackerman, 104 A.D.2d 940; 20 Op. State Compt. 215; 9 Op. State Compt. 251–52; 6 Op. State Compt. 120; 10E McQuillan, Law of Municipal Corporations 74–75, § 28.37 (3d ed. 1990); but see Grayson v. Town of Huntington, 144 Misc. 2d 1064, 545 N.Y.S.2d 633 (Sup. Ct., Suffolk Co. 1989), aff’d, 160 A.D.2d 835, 554 N.Y.S.2d 269 (2d Dep’t 1990) (N.Y. Public Housing Law § 124 allows for alienation of property for use as low-income housing and, therefore, it was lawful to abandon the property even if it was determined that the land was parkland); Avella v. City of New York, 131 A.D.3d 77, 13 N.Y.S.3d 358 (1st Dep’t 2015), aff’d, 29 N.Y.3d 425, 58 N.Y.S.3d 236 (2017) (in a case involving property next to Shea Stadium: “the public trust doctrine is clear that any alienation of parkland must be explicitly authorized by the legislature . . . it is simply not in our power to set the doctrine aside, no matter how worthy a proposed use of parkland may be. Here, while there is a legislative mandate for the use of the park, that mandate does not encompass the use proposed by respondents”); Capruso v. Village of Kings Point, 23 N.Y.3d 631, 992 N.Y.S.2d 469 (2014) (“Defendants concede that the Western Corner is dedicated parkland and that the present and proposed uses of it have not been authorized by the State Legislature, and this...