96 N.Y.2d 566 (2001)

A riparian owner has the right to conduct maintenance dredging of public underwater lands if it is necessary to preserve reasonable access to navigable water and does not unreasonably interfere with the rights of the underwater owner.

Summary

This case addresses the conflict between a riparian owner’s right to access navigable waters and a town’s ownership of underwater lands. Commander Oil, a riparian owner, sought to dredge the area near its pier to maintain barge access. The Town of Oyster Bay, the underwater landowner, sought to prevent the dredging. The Court of Appeals held that a riparian owner may dredge if it is necessary to preserve reasonable access and does not unreasonably interfere with the town’s rights. The court reversed the lower court’s injunction and remitted the case for further proceedings applying this standard.

Facts

Commander Oil has operated a petroleum storage facility adjacent to Oyster Bay Harbor since 1929. A pier extends from Commander’s land into the harbor, where barges dock to unload oil. The Town of Oyster Bay owns the underwater land in the harbor. Silt accumulation made the basins near the pier shallower. Commander had previously dredged the basins with the Town’s permission under a lease that expired in 1985. In 1995, Commander sought to dredge again, obtaining permits from state agencies but not seeking the Town’s permission. The Town then sought to enjoin Commander from dredging.

Procedural History

The Town initially challenged the state permits in Article 78 proceedings, which were dismissed. The Town then sued Commander to enjoin the dredging. Supreme Court initially denied a preliminary injunction, but the Appellate Division reversed. Supreme Court then denied a permanent injunction after finding dredging was necessary to restore the basins. The Appellate Division again reversed, granting a permanent injunction, holding that the upland owner has no riparian right to dredge public underwater lands without the public owner’s permission. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

Whether a riparian owner has the right to conduct maintenance dredging of public underwater lands.

Holding

Yes, because a riparian owner may dredge if dredging is necessary to preserve reasonable access to navigable water and does not unreasonably interfere with the rights of the underwater owner.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals acknowledged Commander’s rights as a riparian owner, including the right of access to navigable water. It also recognized the Town’s ownership of the underwater land held in trust for the public good. The court emphasized that neither party’s rights are absolute and must be balanced. The court distinguished this case from Hedges v. West Shore R. R. Co., 150 N.Y. 150 (1896), clarifying that Hedges does not prohibit dredging altogether, but prevents riparian owners from expanding access in a way that seriously impairs the rights of the underwater landowner. The court also noted that the Town’s own stormwater runoff contributed to the silt accumulation. The Court stated, “[N]either the riparian owner nor the underwater landowner has an unfettered veto over reasonable land uses necessary to the other’s acknowledged rights, and where the rights conflict the courts must strike the correct balance.” The court concluded that the riparian owner’s right is to enjoy reasonable access to navigable water, not to maintain the foreshore in any fixed condition. The Court emphasized the importance of balancing the riparian owner’s right to reasonable access with the public owner’s duty to consider the diverse interests of users of the foreshore. The court remanded the case to the Supreme Court to strike the appropriate balance between the parties’ rights, instructing the lower court to consider whether the dredging was necessary for reasonable access and whether it would unreasonably interfere with the Town’s rights.