Real Property Law

Modified Perpendicular Method Used to Allocate Riparian Rights

Muraca v. Meyerowitz

NYLJ 8/9/06, p. 25, col. 1

Supreme Ct., Nassau Cty

(Phelan, J.)

In an action by waterfront landowner against waterfront neighbors for a determination of riparian rights, the court, after trial, held that the land boundaries between the parcels should be extended outward across the water to determine the scope of each landowner's riparian rights.

The three disputed parcels abut one another on Merrick Bay. Plaintiff landowner owns lot 59, a largely rectangular parcel that is largely straight along the shoreline. Meyerowitz owns lot 60, an irregularly shaped parcel that is only 9-feet wide along the shoreline. Because the shoreline is convex in front of lot 60, that parcel has 15 feet of shoreline. Lot 61, a blunted pie-shaped parcel with the longest shoreline, also lies along the convex portion of the shoreline. Meyerowitz, with the permission of the town, which owns the land underneath the water, has built a dock, and maintains a 28-foot boat on the water in front of his parcel. Plaintiff, owner of abutting parcel 59, brought this action to determine the riparian rights of the respective landowners.

The court started by noting that two principal formulas have typically been used to determine riparian rights. First, courts have used the 'perpendicular' method, which draws a line perpendicular to the shore at the boundary line between two parcels, and declares the perpendicular line the boundary between the riparian rights between the landowners. Second, especially on concave coastlines where the perpendicular method could leave landowners without access to navigable waters, courts have used the 'proportional' method, which gives each landowner a channel to the navigable waterway that is proportional to landowner's shoreline. In this case, however, the court determined that neither method was appropriate. The court noted that because of the curvature of the coastline, the perpendicular method would significantly advantage the owner of lot 59 with respect to the other two owners. As a result, the court held that the appropriate method for allocating rights is to extend the land boundaries over the water, and entitle each landowner to access across the channel measured by an extension of the land boundaries.

COMMENT

In Freeport Bay Marina, Inc. v. Grover, 149 AD2d 660, the court held that the 'proportional' method equitably distributes riparian rights among owners of land within a cove, when the land itself does not front a navigable body of water. In applying this method, courts will measure the length of the line of navigability around the cove, which is the shallowest part of the cove closest to the shoreline along which watercraft may travel, and divide the length of that line in proportion to the length of the shoreline. Courts then draw straight lines from the points of division on the shoreline to the points of division on the line of navigability. This method ensures that landowners have access to navigable waters from the entirety of their shorelines. In Freeport Bay, the court rejected a proposed method to allocate the cove's surface water in proportion to surface frontage. The court emphasized that access to navigable waters, not ownership of surface water, was of paramount importance.

When property is located on a straight shoreline, courts generally apply the 'perpendicular' method for allocating riparian rights. The perpendicular method extends boundary lines from the shoreline perpendicular to the onshore boundary lines. Thus, in Zalay v. Huletts Island View Marina & Yacht Club, Inc., 148 AD2d 772, the plaintiff, whose property was located on a peninsula, argued that the perpendicular method reduced his access to the waters east and west of his property, and that he should be given riparian rights proportional to the entire length of his shoreline. The court found that peninsulas are minor irregularities when the shoreline is otherwise straight and that through application of the perpendicular method, the plaintiff had access to navigable waters from the entirety of his northern shoreline and on either side of the peninsula. The court was reluctant to encroach upon the neighboring landowners' riparian rights to give the plaintiff more access than he already had.

In Rumsey v. New York & N.E.R. Co., 133 N.Y. 79, the court established the riparian owner's right to make access to navigable waters practical through the construction of a dock, wharf or other fixed structure. In Rumsey, the defendant's railroad track obstructed the plaintiff's ability to construct his own pier or dock, and the court, recognizing riparian rights as valuable property rights, awarded damages to the plaintiff for his loss of this right. In allocating riparian rights, courts (as in Muraca) seek to protect landowners' ability to erect fixed structures on irregular shorelines when allocating riparian rights

Adjoining landowners may allocate their own riparian rights through express agreement or acquiescence, alleviating the need for the courts to allocate riparian rights. In O'Donnell and Clark v. Kelsey, 10 N.Y. 412, the Court of Appeals found that inferences of acquiescence may be drawn from the landowners' conduct, so long as that conduct is voluntary and acquiescence is fully understood. In that case, the landowners continued their onshore boundary lines into the water, as in Muraca. The court upheld this allocation because the landowner challenging the allocation had made improvements on his land in conformity with the agreed allocation and gave deeds to other owners that followed that allocation.

Modified Perpendicular Method Used to Allocate Riparian Rights

Muraca v. Meyerowitz

NYLJ 8/9/06, p. 25, col. 1

Supreme Ct., Nassau Cty

(Phelan, J.)

In an action by waterfront landowner against waterfront neighbors for a determination of riparian rights, the court, after trial, held that the land boundaries between the parcels should be extended outward across the water to determine the scope of each landowner's riparian rights.

The three disputed parcels abut one another on Merrick Bay. Plaintiff landowner owns lot 59, a largely rectangular parcel that is largely straight along the shoreline. Meyerowitz owns lot 60, an irregularly shaped parcel that is only 9-feet wide along the shoreline. Because the shoreline is convex in front of lot 60, that parcel has 15 feet of shoreline. Lot 61, a blunted pie-shaped parcel with the longest shoreline, also lies along the convex portion of the shoreline. Meyerowitz, with the permission of the town, which owns the land underneath the water, has built a dock, and maintains a 28-foot boat on the water in front of his parcel. Plaintiff, owner of abutting parcel 59, brought this action to determine the riparian rights of the respective landowners.

The court started by noting that two principal formulas have typically been used to determine riparian rights. First, courts have used the 'perpendicular' method, which draws a line perpendicular to the shore at the boundary line between two parcels, and declares the perpendicular line the boundary between the riparian rights between the landowners. Second, especially on concave coastlines where the perpendicular method could leave landowners without access to navigable waters, courts have used the 'proportional' method, which gives each landowner a channel to the navigable waterway that is proportional to landowner's shoreline. In this case, however, the court determined that neither method was appropriate. The court noted that because of the curvature of the coastline, the perpendicular method would significantly advantage the owner of lot 59 with respect to the other two owners. As a result, the court held that the appropriate method for allocating rights is to extend the land boundaries over the water, and entitle each landowner to access across the channel measured by an extension of the land boundaries.

COMMENT

In Freeport Bay Marina, Inc. v. Grover , 149 AD2d 660, the court held that the 'proportional' method equitably distributes riparian rights among owners of land within a cove, when the land itself does not front a navigable body of water. In applying this method, courts will measure the length of the line of navigability around the cove, which is the shallowest part of the cove closest to the shoreline along which watercraft may travel, and divide the length of that line in proportion to the length of the shoreline. Courts then draw straight lines from the points of division on the shoreline to the points of division on the line of navigability. This method ensures that landowners have access to navigable waters from the entirety of their shorelines. In Freeport Bay, the court rejected a proposed method to allocate the cove's surface water in proportion to surface frontage. The court emphasized that access to navigable waters, not ownership of surface water, was of paramount importance.

When property is located on a straight shoreline, courts generally apply the 'perpendicular' method for allocating riparian rights. The perpendicular method extends boundary lines from the shoreline perpendicular to the onshore boundary lines. Thus, in Zalay v. Huletts Island View Marina & Yacht Club, Inc., 148 AD2d 772, the plaintiff, whose property was located on a peninsula, argued that the perpendicular method reduced his access to the waters east and west of his property, and that he should be given riparian rights proportional to the entire length of his shoreline. The court found that peninsulas are minor irregularities when the shoreline is otherwise straight and that through application of the perpendicular method, the plaintiff had access to navigable waters from the entirety of his northern shoreline and on either side of the peninsula. The court was reluctant to encroach upon the neighboring landowners' riparian rights to give the plaintiff more access than he already had.

In Rumsey v. New York & N.E.R. Co. , 133 N.Y. 79, the court established the riparian owner's right to make access to navigable waters practical through the construction of a dock, wharf or other fixed structure. In Rumsey, the defendant's railroad track obstructed the plaintiff's ability to construct his own pier or dock, and the court, recognizing riparian rights as valuable property rights, awarded damages to the plaintiff for his loss of this right. In allocating riparian rights, courts (as in Muraca) seek to protect landowners' ability to erect fixed structures on irregular shorelines when allocating riparian rights

Adjoining landowners may allocate their own riparian rights through express agreement or acquiescence, alleviating the need for the courts to allocate riparian rights. In O'Donnell and Clark v. Kelsey , 10 N.Y. 412, the Court of Appeals found that inferences of acquiescence may be drawn from the landowners' conduct, so long as that conduct is voluntary and acquiescence is fully understood. In that case, the landowners continued their onshore boundary lines into the water, as in Muraca. The court upheld this allocation because the landowner challenging the allocation had made improvements on his land in conformity with the agreed allocation and gave deeds to other owners that followed that allocation.