RIVERVIEW PARTNERS LP v. CITY OF PEEKSKILL (2000)

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that certain property is not a public park, the defendant appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), dated February 3, 1999, which denied its motion for summary judgment, granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and declared that the subject property was not a public park.

ORDERED that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the cross motion is denied, and it is declared that the subject property is a public park.

 In the absence of a formal dedication of land for public use, an implied dedication may exist when a municipality's acts and declarations manifest a present, fixed, and unequivocal intent to dedicate (see, Cook v. Harris, 61 N.Y. 448, 454, 1875 WL 10716;  Winston v. Village of Scarsdale, 170 A.D.2d 672, 673, 567 N.Y.S.2d 269;  Village of Croton-On-Hudson v. County of Westchester, 38 A.D.2d 979, 331 N.Y.S.2d 883, affd. 30 N.Y.2d 959, 335 N.Y.S.2d 825, 287 N.E.2d 617;  Gewirtz v. City of Long Beach, 69 Misc.2d 763, 770, 330 N.Y.S.2d 495, affd. 45 A.D.2d 841, 358 N.Y.S.2d 957).   Once established, the dedication is irrevocable (see, Cook v. Harris, supra, at 453;  Matter of Ellington Constr. Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of New Hempstead, 152 A.D.2d 365, 549 N.Y.S.2d 405, affd. 77 N.Y.2d 114, 564 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 566 N.E.2d 128).

 Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the defendant established an implied dedication by submission of evidence demonstrating that the subject property was purchased in 1929 for park purposes, was named “Fort Hill Park” on various city maps and on a sign at the park entrance, was used by the public as a park since its purchase, and was maintained and improved by the defendant for park and historic purposes (see, Cook v. Harris, supra, at 454;  Village of Croton-On-Hudson v. County of Westchester, supra, at 980, 331 N.Y.S.2d 883;  Gewirtz v. City of Long Beach, supra).   In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to submit sufficient evidence to create an issue of fact regarding the implied dedication.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.