. '

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF NASSAU - PART 15

Present: HON. WILLIAM R. LaMARCAJustice

PAUL J. ERRICO, JR. and SALLIE ERRICO,

Plaintiffs,

-against- INDEX NO: 18048/04

ALLEN WEINSTEIN, LESLIE WEINSTEIN , THE

TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD, RONALD W. MASTERS,AS COMMISSIONER OF THE TOWN OFHEMPSTEAD' S DEPARTMENT OF CONVERSATIONAND WATERWAYS, and ERIN M. CROTTY, ASCOMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK STATEDEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION,

Defendants.

-and-

GERI RUSSO, SCOTT RUSSO, JANE FACCHINI,CLAUDIO FACCHINI , KEVIN McAULIFFE, KATHLEENMcAULIFFE, USHA ARAMALLA and PURNACHANDRAARAMALLA.

Additional Defendants.

DECISION AFTER TRIAL

Appearances:

For Plaintiff:

Rosenberg, Calica & Birney, Esqs.By: Ronald Rosenberg, Esq.and Lesley Reardon , Esq.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs100 Garden City Plaza , Suite 408Garden City, NY 11530

For Defendants:

Forchell , Curto , Schwartz , Mineo , Carlino &Cohn , Esqs.By: Anthony J. Sabino, Esq.Attorneys for Defendants Allen Weinstein , LeslieWeinstein , the Town of Hempstead , Ronald W.Masters, as Commissioner of the Town ofHempstead' s Department of Conservation &Waterways , and Erin M. Crotty, asCommissioner of the New York State

Department of Environmental Conservation14 Russell AvenueBethpage, NY 11714

Kroll , Moss & Kroll , LLPBy: John K. Moss , Esq.

Attorneys for Defendants Geri Russo , ScottRusso , Kevin McAuliffe, Kathleen McAuliffeUsha Aramalla and Purnachandra Aramalla

400 Garden City PlazaGarden City, NY 11530

Cullen & Dykman , LLPBy: Peter J. Mastraglio , Esq.

Attorneys for Jane Facchini and ClaudoFacchini100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard

Garden City, NY 11530

Procedural Background

This matter was commenced in 2004 by plaintiffs , PAUL J. ERRICO and SALLIE

ERRICO (hereinafter referred to as the "ERRICOS"), against defendants ALLEN

WEINSTEIN and LESLIE WEINSTEIN (hereinafter referred to as the "WEINSTEINS"

THE TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD (hereinafter referred to as the "TOWN"), RONALD W.

MASTERS , AS COMMISSIONER OF THE TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD' S DEPARTMENT OF

CONSERVATION & WATERWAYS (hereinafter referred to as "MASTERS") and ERIN M.

CROTTY, AS COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (hereinafter referred to as the "DEC"

The petition and complaint sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief and monetary

relief for trespassing and wrongful interference with the ERRICOS' riparian rights and for

an order directing the removal of the WEINSTEINS' ramp, dock and mooring poles. In

addition , it also sought Article 78 review of the permits authorizing the construction of

mooring piles issued to the WEINSTEINS and revocation of same. Finally, the ERRICOS

sought a declaration of the parties riparian rights.

By Short Form Order , dated September 9 , 2005 , Honorable Justice Kenneth Davis

dismissed the Article 78 proceeding and the 10 and 11 causes of action ofthe complaint

which sought to annul the DEC and the TOWN permits issued to the WEINSTEINS.

Thereafter, on April 21 , 2006, numerous motions were submitted to Justice Davis which

sought the following relief: 1) the WEINSTEINS' motion for an order awarding summary

judgment, dismissing the ERRICOS' complaint; 2) a cross-motion by the DEC for an order

dismissing the ERRICOS' complaint; 3) a cross-motion by the ERRICOS for an order

awarding summary judgment on the first through fourth causes of action for judgment

defining the parties respective riparian rights; and 4) a cross-motion by the TOWN and

MASTERS for summary judgment dismissing the ERRICOS' complaint. The DEC , the

TOWN , MASTERS and the WEINSTEINS argued that the remaining causes of action

should be dismissed because the adjoining landowners are necessary parties and because

the remaining claims were essentially the Article 78 allegations previously dismissed by the

Court. By Short Form Order, dated June 20 , 2006 , Justice Davis granted the motions of

the TOWN , MASTERS and the DEC dismissing the complaint as against them , and denied

the ERRICOS and the WEINSTEINS respective motions for summary judgment.

The Court also ordered that the adjoining landowners fronting the canal in the area

in question be added as necessary parties. While the ERRICOS and WEINSTEINS'

properties are at the south terminus of a canal , to the east of said properties , also fronting

the canal , is the USHA ARAMALLA and PURNACHANDRA ARAMALLA (hereinafter

referred to as the "ARAMALLAS") property, followed on its east by the KEVIN McAULIFFE

and KATHLEEN McAULIFFE (hereinafter referred to as the "McAULIFFES") property. To

the West of the WEINSTEINS and ERRICOS properties , also fronting the canal , is the

propert of GERI RUSSO and SCOTT RUSSO (hereinafter referred to as the "RUSSOS"

followed on the west by the JANE FACCHINI and CLAUDIO FACCHINI (hereinafter

referred to as the "FACCHINIS") property.

The ERRICOS' causes of action which survived and were tried by the Court were

as follows: 1) the first cause of action - for a declaratory judgment declaring the boundaries

of the parties riparian rights , which plaintiffs claim were violated by the WEI NSTEI NS' boat

and dock; 2) the second cause of action - for an injunction enjoining and restraining the

WEINSTEINS and their successors and assigns from violating the ERRICOS riparian

rights; 3) the third cause of action - for an injunction permanently enjoining and restraining

the WEINSTEINS and their successors and assigns from erecting any ramp, dock or

mooring piles or other structure which exceeds the WEINSTEINS riparian rights or which

interfere with the ERRICOS riparian rights; 4) the fourth cause of action - for a mandatory

injunction directing the WEINSTEINS to immediately remove the ramp, floating dock and

mooring piles in their entirety, at their cost and expense; and 5) the eighth and ninth

causes of action - for damages based upon trespass and nuisance.

The trial of this matter commenced on May 4 , 2009 and continued on May 5, May

6 and May 8 2009 (site inspection), and concluded on May 14, 2009 after conference.

Facts

The body of water, which is the subject of this dispute, is known as the Mandalay

Canal located in the Town of Hempstead , in the unincorporated area known as Wantagh

New York. All parties agreed that there should be a fair and equitable allocation of the

riparian rights in the cove which is the terminus of the Mandalay Canal. Further, all parties

agreed that Mandalay Canal is 110 feet wide , as measured between the McAULIFFES'

bulkhead on the east and the FACCHINIS' bulkhead on the west side of the canal. They

also all agreed to the following shoreline frontages in the cove , in accordance with a survey

prepared by BowneAE&T Group of Mineo la, New York, dated November 2006: RUSSOS

21 feet "scaled" ; ERRICOS 60 feet; WEINSTEINS 39.95 feet; and ARAMALLAS 24.

feet. Thus , the shoreline frontage in the cove totals 145.05 feet. All agreed that this matter

is governed by the New York State Code , Rules and Regulations 9 NYCRR 9 274. 5, in

particular the Round Lake (PIE) Method and the Proportionate Thread of the Stream

Method. The Court in deciding which method to employ may base its decision on any

combination of the surveying principals set forth in the Regulations to determine the

riparian zones of the parties.

The shore line frontage of the McAULIFFES and the FACCHINIS run parallel to the

Mandalay Canal immediately north of the cove. The parties affected in the cove are the

ERRICOS , the WEINSTEINS , the RUSSOS and the ARAMALLAS. Although the

McAULIFFES and the FACCHINIS' properties are on a parallel course with the Mandalay

Canal , their riparian rights may be affected to some extent by the Court's decision.

The parties in the cove are experienced boaters. It is an area requiring close

cooperation of the owners so that they may all enjoy access to the navigable channel. Use

of every foot of space by the parties has an impact on their neighbor. The disagreement

that is the subject of this litigation arose in 2004 when the WEINSTEINS docked their

approximately 36 foot boat perpendicular to the shoreline. All of the other parties docked

their boats parallel to their property lines.

The ERRICOS claim that they are aggrieved by the encroachment of the

WEINSTEINS' boat and pilings , which pilings they claim extend 17 feet beyond the

WEINSTEINS' property line in front of the ERRICOS' property. There was testimony at

trial that the ERRICOS cannot gain access to the channel without employing 2 or 3 people

who must manually push off the WEINSTEINS' poles and the ERRICOS' dock. Plaintiffs

assert it is a dangerous procedure as evidenced by Mrs. ERRICO' s fall off the swimming

platform of their boat into the water between the boat and the dock , while the engine was

running, which resulted in an injury to her hand requiring treatment at a local hospital. Mr.

McAULIFFE also testified that he has had difficulty docking his boat and relied on help

from the WEINSTEINS.

The Law

It is well settled that, although a riparian owner enjoys the right of reasonable, safe

and convenient access to navigable water

, "

including the right to make this access a

practical reality by building a pier, or 'wharfing out'" from his frontage (see, Short Form

Order, dated June 20, 2006 (Davis, J.) in the instant matter, Town of Oyster Bay v

Commander Oil Corp. 96 NY2d 566 , 734 NYS2d 108 , 759 NE2d 1233 (C.A. 2001);

Adirondack League Club v Sierra Club 92 NY2d 591 , 684 NYS2d 168 , 706 NE2d 1192

(C. A. 1998); Town of Hempstead v Oceanside Yacht Harbor, Inc. 38 AD2d 263 , 328

NYS2d 894 affd, 32 NY2d 859 , 346 NYS2d 529, 299 Ne2d 895 (C.A. 1973); Mascolo v

RomazProperties, Ltd. 28AD3d 617 813 NYS2d 765 (2 Dept. 2006); Bravo v Terstiege

196 AD2d 473, 601 NYS2d 129 (2 Dept. 1993); Muraca v Meyerowitz 11 Misc3d 1061A

816 NYS2d 697 (Supreme Nassau Co. 2006)), the right of reasonable access " is not

absolute" and must be balanced against the competing rights of the other affected parties

(see, Town of Oyster Bay v Commander Oil Corp. , supra; Mascolo v Romaz Properties

Ltd. , supra; Muraca v Meyerowitz, supra). In order to balance those rights "fairly, each

individual landowner s right of direct access must be considered together with the right of

direct access enjoyed by the neighboring owners , none of which should be unfairly

encroached upon (Muraca v. Meyerowitz, supra).

Because of the close proximity of the parties in the cove, the Court must provide

clear riparian lines so that the construction of piers and wharfs and the movement of boats

is accomplished in an orderly fashion , treating all the parties equally. To that end , the

Court considered the various surveying methods directed in 9 NYCRR 9 274.5, as well as

the applicability of the Code of the Town of Hempstead , 9155-4 (E) and (F).

9 NYCRR 9274. , entitled Standards , directs that the resolution of any riparian

rights complaint wil be based upon one , or a combination offive (5) surveying methods to

determine riparian zones , as follows: the Perpendicular Method , the Long Lake Method

the Round Lake (PIE) Method , the Colonial Method and the Proportionate Thread Of The

Stream Method. The ERRICOS , the RUSSOS, the McAULIFFES and the ARAMALLAS

4 of the 6 parties , agreed that the Round Lake (PI E) Method or the Proportionate Thread

Of The Stream Method are applicable to the conditions existing in the canal and the cove

and should be utilized in determining the parties riparian rights. The FACCHINIS took no

position in this regard and the WEINSTEINS urged that the Court utilize a method

fashioned by their expert witness.

The ROUND LAKE (PIE) METHOD is described in 9 NYCRR 9274. , as follows:

Establishment of the littoral (riparian) zone for a circular body of water isaccomplished in a manner which is called the Round Lake or Pie Method.In this method , a point in the center of the body of water is established anda line drawn from the property corner at the shore is extended outshore tothe established point at the center of the body of water.

The PROPORTIONATE THREAD OF THE STREAM METHOD is described in

9 NYCRR 9274. , as follows

Apportionment is made among several riparian owners in such a manner thateach owner has the same percentage of footage in the thread of the streamas they have along the shoreline. Measure the shoreline, measure thethread of the stream , then divide the thread of the stream distance by theshoreline distance and multiply the resulting factor by the shoreline distancefor each lot along the shoreline. The distance obtained is applied to thethread of the stream and the riparian/littoral zone is determined byconnecting the lines between the shoreline property points with the outshorepoints established along the thread.

Additionally, the Code of the Town of Hempstead , 9155-4 (E) directs , as follows:

No boat or vessel shall be moored , anchored or docked in any waterway ofthe town so that such boat or vessel or any projection thereof extends intothe waterway more than one-fourth (1/4) of the width of such waterway, asmeasured between the low waterlines along the waterway at the point orplace that such boat or vessel is moored , anchored or docked , except thatif the waterway is bulkheaded along each shoreline , with width of suchwaterway may be the width between bulkheads.

The Code of the Town of Hempstead , 9155-4(F) directs , as follows:

No structure , dock or mooring shall be erected or constructed in , over or onany waterway within the Town of Hempstead , except as may otherwise beprovided in accordance with this Code. Any structure , dock or mooring soerected or constructed shall not project into the waterway a distance greaterthan one-fourth (1/4) of the width of such waterway as measured betweenthe low waterlines along the waterway or between the outboard face ofexisting bulkheading at the point or place that such structure , dock ormooring is erected or constructed.

In determining the width of the waterway in the case at bar, the measurement

between the McAULIFFES' bulkhead on the east and the FACCHINIS' bulkhead on the

west side of the Mandalay Canal is 110 feet and , therefore , in accordance with the TOWN

Code " 1/4 rule , each party may construct a dock or mooring and/or project his boat no

more than 27.5 feet into the canal.

Discussion

The best evidence the Court had to fashion fair and equitable riparian zones for

each of the parties, were the documents in evidence produced by the experts called by the

ERRICOS and the WEINSTEINS. The ERRICOS' expert, Lewis J. Gnip, (hereinafter

referred to as "Gnip ), was a licensed surveyor with 30 years of experience , having worked

for the New York State Office of General Services and the DEC , as well as in the field and

as a lecturer on surveying techniques. The WEINSTEINS' expert , Charles W. Bowman

(hereinafter referred to as "Bowman ), was not a licensed surveyor but had extensive field

experience, having been employed by the New York State Department of Environment

Real Propert Bureau and the DEC , who presently works in private industry on waterfront

construction projects.

Each of the experts presented maps for the Court's information and guidance

depicting the riparian rights of the parties in accordance with the surveying methods they

urged the Court to adopt. Gnip presented 2 maps depicting the ROUND LAKE (PIE)

METHOD and the PROPORTIONATE THREAD OF THE STREAM METHOD (Plaintiffs

Exhibits " 12" and " 13"

).

Bowman also presented a map (Defendant Exhibit " ) which

differed substantially from those submitted by the other expert. Both experts utilized the

survey of the area prepared by Bowne AT&E Corp. , dated November 2006 , to establish

the property lines in the subject area. (Plaintiffs' Exhibit "

Gnip constructed his maps of mylar, a transparent material , which were prepared

to overlay the Bowne survey to confirm the accuracy of the maps to the survey. Gnip

established the riparian zones by employing very precise surveying methods as directed

in 9 NYCRR 9274.5, particularly the Round Lake (PIE) Method , the Proportionate Method

and also the Long Lake Method. He also incorporated the " 1/4 rule" as mandated by the

Code of the Town of Hempstead. The Gnip maps were marked into evidence and were

accepted by 4 of the 6 parties. The WEINSTEINS objected to the information contained

in those maps and the FACCHINIS took no position on the maps in evidence.

The favored method Gnip proposed was the Round Lake (PIE) Method as he

considered the cove to be circular in nature. He applied the Long Lake and the

Proportionate Methods to the Round Lake (PIE) Method in arriving at the riparian zones

depicted in Plaintiffs ' Exhibit " 12". He utilzed the Bowne survey, accepted by all parties

and personal observations of the cove in his research in preparing the maps. Utilzing the

distance of 110 feet from bulkhead to bulkhead , Gnip calculated , in accordance with the

Code of the Town of Hempstead , that the " 1/4 rule" allows the landowners to dock boats

or build structures such as docks and moorings out from the shoreline a distance of 27.

feet. He calculated that, after deducting 27.5 feet from each side of the canal

accordance with the " 1/4 rule , the remaining navigable channel measured 55 feet in width.

He applied the " 1/4 rule" to the contours of the cove and used the deeded measurements

of the shoreline on each property, except with respect to the RUSSOS' property which

scaled at 21 feet. His calculations allow 50% of each owners frontage in the cove in

establishing the access each party has to the 55 foot wide navigable channel. He drew

lines from the limits of each property to the center of the canal as called for by the Round

Lake (PIE) Method. Gnip s calculations allow each party in the cove the following number

of feet of access to the navigable channel: RUSSO 10.5 feet ERRICO 30 feet

WEINSTEIN 20.00 feet and ARAMALLA 12 feet, for a total of 72.

In Plaintiffs Exhibit "13" , Gnip employed the Proportionate Thread of Stream

Method. This method was the second choice of 4 of the 6 parties , excluding WEINSTEIN

and FACCHINI. Gnip used the same calculations as applied in the Round Lake (PIE)

Method: 110 feet across the canal , 27. 5 feet from the bulkhead following the contours of

the cove, and 55 feet of navigable channel. Under this method he did not measure from

the property lines to the center of the canal but to the thread of the stream. Gnip

calculations allowed 45% of the frontage of each propert in the cove in establishing the

access to the navigable waterway. The results are as follows: RUSSO 9. 5feet, ERRICO

27.3feet , WEINSTEIN 18. 2 feet , ARAMALLA 11 feet for a total of 66 feet. Gnip testified

that the calculations that he made on both maps were based on sound surveying principles

which offered reasonable access of all parties to the navigable waterway.

Testimony at trial established that, in preparing his map to establish the riparian

zones in the cove , Bowman used methods which were in stark contrast to the plaintiffs

precise maps in evidence and that he took a less formal view. He testified that he used

his field experience in employing the Proportionate Method and rejected the " 1/4 rule

directed by the TOWN Code. He admitted to not employing recognized surveying

standards. In rejecting the " 1/4 rule " mandated by the TOWN Code , Bowman testified that

he made his calculations by estimating the widths of boats and any other structures such

as docks and moorings extending into the Mandalay Canal from the property owner

bulkheads. He determined that an average of 20 feet out from each bulkhead was

sufficient for the free use of the surface waters of the canal. However, he only applied the

20 foot restriction to the shorelines running north and south , parallel to the waterway, as

found on the McAULIFFES and FACCHINIS' properties. He did not apply the 20 foot

restriction to the frontages in the cove. Instead , Bowman only applied the 20 foot

measurement as far as the north end of the RUSSOS' property and , at that point , drew a

line across the canal to the middle of the McAULIFFES' property, which he designated as

the navigable channel , 70 feet in width. The result of such a conclusion allowed boats or

other structures such as docks and moorings in the cove to be built out from the owner

bulkhead to more than 50 feet. The Court, having made an on site inspection , concluded

that any boat of the size and width contemplated by the Bowman map would have a severe

impact on the riparian zones of the other landowners in the cove and would only benefit

the WEINSTEINS , whose present docks , poles and 36 foot boat extended well past the

20 foot restriction imposed on other owners of canal frontage. Under the Bowman plan

should the WEINSTEINs or the ERRICOs decide to increase the size of their boats or add

additional structures to the line of the navigable waterway, RUSSO and ARAMALLA'

access to the navigable waterway would be severely impacted or non-existent. The Court

also notes that restricting the FACCHINIS and McAULIFFES to 20 feet from their

bulkheads , notwithstanding that they have the most frontage on the canal , would be

counter to the plea of all parties that the Court fashion riparian zones that are fair and

equitable. The Court also considered the fact that Bowman s map contained numerical

errors and reduced the ERRICOS' frontage on the canal from 60 feet , as deeded and

confirmed by the Bowne survey, to 50.9 feet. Additionally, there were other calculations

and inclusions on the Bowman map that needed to be redacted as they were merely

speculative and had no relationship to the conditions prevailing in the cove.

Conclusion

The Court acknowledges that it did not have the scientific knowledge or background

to address the riparian zone issue and therefore permitted the parties respective experts

to give testimony as well as their expert opinions , and to submit exhibits that were accepted

into evidence. However, the Court may reject the experts ' opinion if found to be unreliable

and the opinion of the expert wil be given the weight that the expert's qualifications in the

field warrant. Furthermore , as this was a bench trial , the Court was both the finder of facts

and the arbiter of the law. The Court considered the testimony of the witnesses , gave

weight to that testimony and generally determined the reliability of the witnesses testimony.

(Cf. Greenberg v Behlen 220 AD2d 720 , 633 NYS2d 189 (2 Dept. 1995)). The Court

also considered the interest or lack of interest in the case or the bias or prejudice of the

witness.

In reaching its determination , the Court finds that Bowman cannot reject the

mandates of the TOWN Code, as the TOWN has the power to control its waterways.

....

(N)avigable waters are subject to the sole jurisdiction and control of theState of New York (see Naviqation !-aw 9 30). However, the StateLegislature has excluded "tidewaters bordering on and lying within theboundaries of Nassau and Suffolk counties" from the definition of navigablewater of this state ( Navigation !-aw 9 2 ) to accommodate the colonial landgrants which conferred ownership and control over tidal waterways to certainLong Island townships , including the Town of Brookhaven (see Matter

Rottenberg v Edwards. 103A. 2q 138. 140- 1A. 478 Y.S.The statutory exemption contained in avigation !-aw 9 2 has consistently

been construed as authorizing the Counties of Nassau and Suffolk and theirrespective townships to legislate and control the use of such lands andwaterways (see Matter of Rottenbera v Edwards. SUfJra at 141 ). The Townas successor to the title and rights of the English government, may do "all

things that a government may do for the benefit of its people Peoole v

Miler. 235 ADD Piv 226. 230. 257 .Y. S. 300 affd 260 NY 585. 184E. 103 r1932l) , and holds title " in trust for all the inhabitants as a public

and governmental agency Knapp v Fasbender. 1 NY2d 212. 231. 134

2d 482 151 N.Y. 2d 668 1950)

Accordingly, the Town , as sovereign , has governmental authority over suchwaterways within its territorial limits (see, Incorporated ViI. Of Manorhavenv. Ventura Yacht Servs. 166 AD2d 685 , 561 NYS2d 277(1990); Grace v.

Town of Hempstead, 166 AD 844 852 , 152 NYS122 (1915), affd 220 NY628 115 NE 1040 (1917). . .

Melby v Duff, 304 AD2d 33, 758 NYS2d 89 (2 Dept. 2003). Therefore, the Court rejects

the proposals of Bowman as unreliable, and concludes that itwould be folly to consider the

idea that larger boats and structures than already exist may be accommodated in the cove.

The WEINSTEIN boat is approximately 36 feet in length and , together with pilings which

extend out beyond the 27.5 foot TOWN code restriction , the Court finds that the

neighboring parties free access to the navigable channel has been affected. The impact

on the cove is fully demonstrated by Plaintiffs ' Exhibit II 12a" wh ich is a scale model of the

WEINSTEINS' boat superimposed on Plaintiffs' Exhibit "12" , Gnip s map utilzing the

Round Lake (Pie) Method.

The Court is mindful of the preference for the application of the proportionate

method when addressing the riparian rights of parties in a cove as expressed in

Freeport

Bay Marina, Inc. v Grover 149 AD2d 660 , 540 NYS2d 471 (2 Dept. 1989).

The first issue involved the determination of how the riparian rights of theparties should be apportioned within the cove. It was stipulated that theappropriate method of apportionment would be the so-called "proportional"

method; however, there was still a question as to how the proportional

method should be applied. The proportional method has been recognized inNew York since as early as 1852 in Donnell v Kelsev (10 NY 412; see

also, People ex rel. Cornwall v Woodruff. 30 App Div 43 affd 157 NY 709

In Groner v Foster (94 Va 650. 652-653. 27 SE 493. 494) , the court, citing

Donnell v Kelsey (supra), formulated the following step by step application

of the method: "measure the length of the shore and ascertain the portionthereof to which each riparian proprietor is entitled; next measure the lengthof the line of navigabilty, and give to each proprietor the same proportion ofit that he is entitled to of the shore line; and then draw straight lines from thepoints of division so marked for each proprietor on the line of navigabilty to

the extremities of his lines on the shore. Each proprietor wil be entitled to theportion of the line of navigabilty thus apportioned to him , and also to theportion of the flats , or land under the water, within the lines so drawn from

the extremities of his portion of the said line to the extremities of his part ofthe shore

In fact , Gnip , Round Lake (PIE) Method applies the Proportional Method , among others

in establishing the number of feet of access each party in the cove has to the navigable

waterway.

In accordance with the above analysis the Court declares , with respect to the first

cause of action, that the riparian rights of the parties are to be allocated in accordance

with the Round Lake (PIE) and the Proportionate Thread of Stream Method as depicted

in Gnip s map submitted into evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit " 12". The Court credits the

expert testimony of Gnip and concludes that said method is the simplest method to apply

and affords all of the parties the greatest access to the navigable waterway.

Based on the foregoing, with respect to the second , third and fourth causes of

action , the Court concludes that the WEINSTEINS violated the riparian rights of the

neighboring property owners in the cove and , therefore, the WEINSTEINS , and their

successors and assigns , are permanently enjoined and restrained from maintaining any

boats and structures such as docks , moorings and pilings , which exceed their riparian

rights and which violate the TOWN code and the riparian zones of the other parties, as

depicted in Plaintiff's Exhibit " 12" . To effectuate same, the WEINSTEINS are directed to

remove and relocate their boat and their ramp, dock , mooring pilings and any structures

that exceed their riparian rights as determined herein , to areas within their riparian right

zone, within ninety (90) days from service upon them of a copy of this order, with notice of

entry. The Court notes that the " inability of the (WEINSTEINS) to dock their currently

owned boat within their riparian rights is of little consequence to the outcome of this

litigation. The corridor of access provided herein is sufficient to accommodate many

reasonably sized watercraft commensurate with the very limited shorefront provided. . .

Muraca v Meyerowitz 13 Misc3d 348 818 NYS2d 450 (Supreme Nassau Co. 2006).

As to the eight and ninth causes of action which seek money damages for trespass

and nuisance , while it is clear that an action for trespass may be maintained for trespassing

upon riparian rights (see Douglaston Manor, Inc v Bahrakis, 89 NY2d 472 , 655 NYS2d

745 678 NE2d 201 (C.A. 1987)), and that an action for private nuisance can be established

by showing (1) an interference substantial in nature; (2) intentional in origin; (3)

unreasonable in character; (4) with a person s right to use and enjoy land; (5) caused by

another s conduct (see Mangusi v Town of Mount Pleasant, 19 AD3d 656, 799 NYS2d

67 (2 Dept. 2005)), it is the judgment of the Court that the evidence presented at trial was

insufficient for the plaintiffs to prevail. No evidence, whatsoever, of damages was

presented, and the Court rejects plaintiffs ' request to continue the litigation by referring the

matter for an inquest to determine the extent of damages. This matter should have been

resolved at trial when evidence of damages could have been appropriately assessed by

the Court. Therefore the eighth and ninth causes of action are dismissed.

This constitutes the decision of the Court. Settle Judgment on Notice.

Dated: October 22, 2009

w,lLLlAM R. LaMARCA , J.

ENTEREDOCT

' ' /:',"

. ,"'W""

NAS::AU vVU" I CO CLERK'S OFFIE

TO: Rosenberg, Calica & Birney, Esqs.By: Ronald Rosenberg andLesley Reardon

Attorneys for Plaintiffs100 Garden City Plaza , Suite 408Garden City, NY 11530

Forchelli , Curto , Schwartz , Mineo , Carlino & Cohn , Esqs.By: Anthony J. Sabino , Esq.

Attorneys for Defendants Allen Weinstein , Leslie Weinstein , the Town of HempsteadRonald W. Masters , as Commissioner of the Town of Hempstead's Department ofConservation & Waterways , and Erin M. Crotty as Commissioner of the New York State

Department of Environmental Conservation14 Russell AvenueBethpage , NY 11714

Kroll , Moss & Kroll , LLPBy: John K. Moss , Esq.

Attorneys for Defendants Geri Russo , Scott Russo , Kevin McAuliffe , Kathleen McAuliffeUsha Aramalla and Purnachandra Aramalla

400 Garden City PlazaGarden City, NY 11530

Cullen & Dykman , LLPBy: Peter J. Mastraglio , Esq.

Attorneys for Jane Facchini and Claudo Facchini100 Quentin Roosevelt BoulevardGarden City, NY 11530