Scoglio v. County of Suffolk, 85 N.Y.2d 709 (1995)

Highway Law § 125 grants an abutting landowner the right to purchase surplus property acquired by the county for highway purposes when the sale will give the owner frontage on the new highway, but does not compel the county to sell the property.

Summary

Scoglio, an owner of land abutting County Road 96, sought to prevent Suffolk County from selling a parcel of land, formerly part of the roadbed, to anyone other than him after the road was rerouted. The New York Court of Appeals held that Highway Law § 125 requires the county, if it chooses to sell the surplus land, to offer it to the abutting landowner (Scoglio) because the sale would provide him with frontage on the new highway. However, the court clarified that the statute does not mandate the county to sell the land at all, leaving that decision to the county’s discretion. The statute aims to protect the rights of abutting landowners.

Facts

Scoglio owned land in West Babylon abutting County Road 96. Suffolk County acquired land, including some abutting Scoglio’s property, to reroute the road. The rerouting created a surplus parcel between Scoglio’s property and the new road, which had been part of the old roadbed. Scoglio leased this surplus parcel from the county. The county then decided to sell the parcel at public auction.

Procedural History

Scoglio filed a CPLR article 78 proceeding to prevent the sale to anyone else and compel the county to convey the parcel to him. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Appellate Division modified, prohibiting the sale to anyone other than Scoglio. The County appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether Highway Law § 125 requires a county to sell surplus property acquired for highway purposes to an abutting landowner when the sale would give that owner frontage on the new highway, and whether the statute compels the county to sell the property at all.

Holding

Yes, but only if the county decides to sell the property at all. Highway Law § 125 requires that if the County elects to sell the surplus parcel, it must sell it to the abutting landowner (Scoglio) because the statute’s evident intent is to protect abutting landowners’ rights. No, because the statute is permissive, stating the county “may” lease or convey surplus property, but is not required to do so.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals based its reasoning on the language and intent of Highway Law § 125. The court emphasized that the statute aims to protect the traditional rights of abutting landowners, including easements of light, air, and access. The court stated, “When respondent acquired the parcel in question solely for highway purposes, it became part of the right-of-way of the new highway, and thus remained burdened with the usual rights, including access, of the abutting owner.” Requiring the sale to the abutting owner preserves these preexisting rights. The court rejected the County’s argument that the statute only provides a right of first refusal, noting that the Legislature specifically created a right of first refusal for certain lands in Wayne County, suggesting that a broader right was intended in the general statute. The Court also rejected the argument that Scoglio needed to demonstrate compensable consequential damages to benefit from the statute, because this would render other parts of the law meaningless. The Court clarified that the decision to sell the property remains at the County’s discretion. As the Court stated, “The statute provides only that the County ‘may’ lease or convey surplus property deemed unnecessary for highway purposes in the manner provided, and cannot be read to require the County to do so.”