Capruso v. Village of Kings Point, 21 N.Y.3d 631 (2013)
The continuing wrong doctrine tolls the statute of limitations for ongoing violations of the public trust doctrine related to unauthorized non-park use of dedicated parkland.
Summary
The Village of Kings Point sought to build a Department of Public Works (DPW) facility on a portion of dedicated parkland. Residents and the State of New York sued, alleging violations of the public trust doctrine. The Village argued the statute of limitations had expired because the non-park use of the land began decades earlier. The Court of Appeals held that the continuing wrong doctrine applied, allowing the challenge to proceed despite the passage of time because the ongoing non-park use constituted a continuous violation of the public trust.
Facts
The Village of Kings Point acquired Kings Point Park in the 1920s. In 1938, the Village leased the park to the Great Neck Park District. In 1946, the Village amended the lease to exclude the “Western Corner” of the park, intending to use it for a pistol range and storage. The Village renewed the lease with this exclusion. The Village erected structures, including a garage and a Quonset hut, on the Western Corner. In 2008, the Village proposed building a 12,000-square-foot DPW facility on the Western Corner, involving deforestation, regrading, and fencing.
Procedural History
Residents sued the Village in 2009 to enjoin the DPW project and current use of the Western Corner. The State of New York filed a similar suit. Supreme Court denied the Village’s motion to dismiss and granted a preliminary injunction. The Appellate Division affirmed. After discovery, Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the residents and the State, permanently enjoining the DPW project and ordering the removal of materials from the Western Corner. The Appellate Division modified the order, deleting the award of attorney’s fees, and affirmed. The Village appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the statute of limitations barred the action challenging the proposed DPW facility, given the Village’s prior non-park use of the land.
2. Whether the continuing wrong doctrine applies to toll the statute of limitations for the Village’s ongoing non-park use of the Western Corner.
3. Whether laches barred the claims brought by the plaintiffs and the State.
Holding
1. No, because the proposed DPW facility was a substantial change in the nature and scope of the existing non-park use.
2. Yes, because the ongoing non-park use of parkland constitutes a continuous violation of the public trust doctrine.
3. No, because laches does not apply to the State acting in a governmental capacity, nor does it apply when plaintiffs allege a continuing wrong.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order. The Court reasoned that the proposed DPW facility was not merely a change in the scope of existing non-park use but a substantial new intrusion. Therefore, the cause of action challenging the facility was not time-barred. Regarding the ongoing non-park use, the Court applied the continuing wrong doctrine, which tolls the statute of limitations when the harm is not traced exclusively to the initial objectionable act but is ongoing. The Court stated that “[t]he harm sustained by the public when structures having ‘no connection with park purposes . . . encroach upon [parkland] without legislative authority plainly conferred’ . . . cannot be traced exclusively to the day when the illegal encroachment began” (quoting Williams v Gallatin, 229 NY 248, 253 [1920]). Because the Village’s violation of the public trust doctrine was continuous, a new cause of action accrued with each successive day, allowing the plaintiffs to challenge the use despite the passage of time. The Court also rejected the Village’s laches defense, noting it did not apply to the State acting to protect a public interest, nor to ongoing wrongs. The court emphasized the unreasonableness of expecting ordinary citizens to know whether a municipality has obtained legislative approval for parkland uses. The court explicitly distinguished this case from a one-time event like the sale of parkland, leaving that issue for another day.