Real Property Law

In an action by the owner of the old Bronx Courthouse seeking damages for inverse condemnation of an abutting street and also seeking to establish an easement over that street, the owner appealed from Supreme Court's dismissal of the complaint. The Appellate Division modified to restore the easement by necessity claim and otherwise affirmed, holding that the statute of limitations barred the inverse condemnation claim but that the easement by necessity claim raised issues of fact for trial.

In 1994, New York City implemented the Melrose Commons urban renewal plan. As part of the plant, the city demapped a portion of East 161^st Street abutting the old Bronx Courthouse, which the city owned. Despite the demapping, the street remained open for traffic, including traffic by city buses. In 1998, the city sold the courthouse to Liberty Square by reference to the city's tax map. The lot description on the tax map did not include the abutting street. When Liberty Square objected to the absence of a metes and bounds description, the city's lawyer drew an irregular circle on a printout of the tax map indicating that the conveyance, allegedly indicating that the circle (which included the abutting street) outlined the property and its easements. Liberty Square recorded the deed and the map with the circle. In 2007, the city conveyed lots north of the courthouse, including the demapped street, for development of a residential and college complex. The street remained open, however, until 2011, when it was converted to pedestrian-friendly open space. Liberty Square then brought this action, contending that the city had taken its property, and contending that it held an easement by prescription or estoppel over the abutting street. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint.