City of Albany v. State of New York, 28 N.Y.2d 352 (1971)
When a municipality conveys land abutting a street, there’s a presumption that the municipality intended to retain ownership and control of the street for public benefit, rebutting the general rule that a conveyance of land abutting a street extends to the street’s center line.
Summary
The City of Albany sought compensation after the State of New York took 8.5 acres, representing a paper street called Lydius Street, for the State University campus. The City had previously conveyed “Great Lots” abutting Lydius Street in 1818. The lower courts denied the City’s claim, holding it had divested itself of title to the street when it conveyed the lots. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that when a municipality is the grantor, there is a presumption that it intended to retain ownership and control of the street for public benefit unless there is a clear indication to the contrary in the deed. The matter was remanded to the Court of Claims for assessment of damages.
Facts
In 1817, the City of Albany planned to sell some of its property and created the Van Alen map, which designated “Great Lots” bordering Lydius Street (now Madison Avenue), a street that was never developed. In 1818, the City conveyed the “Great Lots” to various grantees, with deeds referencing the Van Alen map and stating the lots were bounded by Lydius Street. By 1900, the Albany Country Club acquired the lots and integrated the bed of Lydius Street into its golf course. In 1961, the State took the Country Club property, including the land comprising Lydius Street, for the State University campus. The Country Club conceded it did not own Lydius Street in the original condemnation proceeding.
Procedural History
The City of Albany filed a claim seeking compensation for the 8.5 acres constituting Lydius Street. The Court of Claims denied the claim, holding the city divested itself of title. The Appellate Division affirmed. The City appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the City of Albany retained title to Lydius Street when it conveyed the abutting “Great Lots,” or whether the conveyances transferred title to the center line of the street to the grantees.
Holding
Yes, the City of Albany retained title to Lydius Street because when a municipality conveys land abutting a street, there’s a presumption that the municipality intended to retain ownership and control of the street for public benefit, rebutting the general rule that a conveyance of land abutting a street extends to the street’s center line.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals recognized the general rule that a conveyance of land abutting a street is deemed to pass the fee to the street’s center line, citing Bissell v. New York Cent. R.R. Co., 23 N.Y. 61. However, the Court emphasized that this rule is one of construction and yields to a contrary intent expressed in the deed. The Court distinguished this case from others where the deed described the grant as starting at a corner of an intersection and running along the street, limiting the grant to the street’s exterior line.
The Court relied heavily on Graham v. Stern, 168 N.Y. 517, which established a “material distinction” between conveyances by individuals and those by municipal authorities. The Court quoted Graham: “There is an obvious and a material distinction between the case of a conveyance by an individual of lands bounded upon, or by, a street and that of a similar conveyance by municipal authorities… [T]he municipality would not part with the ownership and control of a public street once vested in it for the public benefit.”
The Court reasoned that a municipality holds the street in trust for the public and has a continuing interest in maintaining control for public purposes. This trust relationship is not extinguished simply because the street was never developed. The Court distinguished Geddes Coarse Salt Co. v. Niagara, Lockport & Ontario Power Co., 207 N.Y. 500, because Geddes involved a grant by the State, not a municipality. The Court also cited Section 3 of the General Municipal Law, which mandates just compensation when municipal property is taken for a substantially different purpose, as was the case here with the State University campus. The Court remanded for a determination of just compensation, treating the land as if it were private property.