8 N.Y.3d 475 (2007)
When the state appropriates land for highway improvement and re-establishes access to a public road, an implicit legal right of access can be created through easements and statutory authority, even without a formal deed conveying cross-vehicular access rights.
Summary
Lake George Associates sought consequential damages after the State appropriated a portion of its land for highway improvements, altering its direct access to two roads. The State created shared driveways on easements along the property lines, requiring customers to cross neighboring properties to access the plaza from certain directions. The Court of Appeals held that the State’s actions, under Highway Law § 10 (24-d) and the establishment of permanent easements, created an enforceable legal right of access for the claimant, precluding consequential damages. The court reasoned that the Highway Law grants the Commissioner of Transportation the power to re-establish access over neighboring parcels, and the intent to provide such access was clear from the easements’ language and purpose.
Facts
Lake George Associates owned a shopping plaza at the corner of Route 9 and Route 149. Prior to 1998, the property had two curb cuts providing direct access to both highways. The State appropriated a frontage strip of claimant’s land to install turning lanes and a sidewalk as part of a highway improvement project. As part of the project, the state also acquired permanent easements over claimant’s land and that of its neighbors, White and Tatko. The state reduced the Route 9 access and eliminated the Route 149 access. The state established new shared driveways on the easements to reestablish access, resulting in indirect access, requiring customers to cross White and Tatko properties.
Procedural History
Lake George Associates sued the State for damages. The Court of Claims awarded direct compensation for the appropriated land but denied consequential damages. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that the permanent easements provided legal access regardless of a formal deed. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the State’s appropriation of land and establishment of permanent easements on neighboring properties, without explicitly granting cross-vehicular access, provides the claimant with an enforceable legal right of access, thereby precluding consequential damages.
Holding
Yes, because Highway Law § 10 (24-d) and the language and purpose of the permanent easements, considered together, demonstrate a clear intent to re-establish access to the landowners, thus creating an enforceable legal right of access despite the absence of an explicit conveyance of cross-vehicular access rights.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court acknowledged that property owners are entitled to consequential damages when the State’s appropriation results in a loss of the right to enter and exit their property, citing Pollak v. State of New York. However, the Court distinguished the present case, emphasizing that in Pollak, there was no statute analogous to Highway Law § 10 (24-d), which authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to re-establish private access to a public road when such access is destroyed by highway construction. The Court emphasized that Highway Law § 10 (24-d) vests significant authority in the Commissioner to act in the interests of the state in constructing and improving highways, including the power to reestablish access over neighboring parcels. The court stated that “[t]he easements here, which undeniably served the purpose of reestablishing permanent joint driveways for access to the retail outlets, when viewed in reference to the powers of the Commissioner under Highway Law § 10 (24-d), create a legal right of access to claimant.” The court reasoned that the language employed in creating the easements reflected a clear intent to reestablish access and referencing Highway Law § 10 in the easements gives rise to an enforceable legal right of access, thereby precluding consequential damages.