A Decision in the Tin Boat Suit
A decision was handed down today in the adverse possession lawsuit brought against the City of Hudson and the New York State Office of General Services by the North Dock Tin Boat Association, a.k.a. the Furgary Boat Club.
In April 2011, New York State Supreme Court Justice Patrick McGrath dismissed the boat club's claim to the 14.4-acre parcel on which their cabins are located, but the Furgarians appealed the decision to the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department. In the decision rendered today, the judges of the Appellate Division stated: "We agree with Supreme Court that [the language in the 1785 legislation describing the property conveyed to the proprietors and on an 1839 map depicting the location of this property along the high water mark and the contours of the river as it existed at that time], as supplemented by other maps, deeds and surveys submitted by respondents, conclusively demonstrate that the property where petitioners' cabins are now located lies wholly north and east of the land conveyed to the proprietors, that no part of the subject proprety was included in the 1785 conveyance, and that the proprety remained in State owneship until the letters patent were issued to the City."
Today's decision appears to have sealed the fate of the Furgary Boat Club.
It's uncanny. Not only does Gossips post two stories in a row featuring two lost Hudson lawsuits which were argued on the basis of maps (see "Sale of Parkland"), but both courts may have misread or ignored crucial information contained on the respective maps.
ReplyDeleteI can only speak to the present "Furgary" case, ever since I made detailed historical map comparisons of both North and South Bays in anticipation that the LWRP process would one day invite the participation of local talent.
(In retrospect, we all know - and must never forget - what a sham our LWRP was vis-a-vis participation. The insufficient Zoning Map which is now a part of the LWRP is nothing less than a disgrace.)
But whatever one thinks of the Furgary community, justice calls for deciding cases on their merits.
In their case, an 1839 map of Hudson showing the original holdings of the Proprietors was argued (ultimately) against the state's claims that the people of New York owned the land. In my opinion, the 1839 map was insufficiently studied by the courts.
Although I acknowledge that I know nothing about the North Bay deeds or their descriptions (and therein may lie my crucial ignorance), based on the 1839 map alone - the very map that the court used to dismiss the Furgarian's appeal - I cannot see how justice was served here.
What's uncanny is that this is eerily similar to the way the plaintiff characterized events in the "Sale of Parkland" decision, or so it seemed according to the Register Star's account. (Although in that case I believe the complaint wasn't that the court couldn't read a map, but that they wouldn't!)
If anyone else is interested in such things, please be in touch. But it looks like it's too late for the North Dock Tin Boat Association.
After reading today's "Memorandum and Order," the following new detail (new to me) is quite significant: "Supreme Court thus properly concluded that this claim was time-barred" (p.3).
ReplyDeleteAlso, "Petitioners did not identify any ambiguities or inaccuracies in respondents' [i.e. the city's] documentary evidence, nor did they otherwise show that this evidence did not resolve the legal and factual issues underlying their claims ..." (p.4).
That last bit was their greatest oversight. Didn't they opt to cite the specific names of the Proprietors who first owned the underwater lots they currently occupy?
It would have been interesting to watch the city argue against such Proprietors as Thomas Jenkins and Ezra Reed whose names are listed on the 1839 map as having owned the property immediately beneath the Furgary shacks.
Umheimllich,is it too late? Like you said
ReplyDelete"But whatever one thinks of the Furgary community, justice calls for deciding cases on their merits."
I am certain Mr Christainson retained good counsel over the years of his fight ,but Columbia County is not the right location to expect much justice.It is these small cases,being won by states,quietly here and there,that worry me.Our National Parks are in danger.They can be picked off,one by one.starting small and then gradually.....
...........
But I cannot say that for the the Furgarian's. Who was representing them?I find the Furgarian's case fascinating.The
previous owner of my house was a Furgarian and the Fire Commisioner.These are north side folks.He left alot of photos and things going back to the late 1900's.He died in 1980. He lived his whole life in this house.I bought the house from his daughter.
If I was a lawyer,this case would be the one I'd want.
It really "would have been interesting to watch the city argue against such Proprietors as Thomas Jenkins and Ezra Reed whose names are listed on the 1839 map as having owned the property immediately beneath the Furgary shacks."
I'll try to find words for something that's immediately apparent when looking at a map.
ReplyDeleteThe Proprietors planned the grid configuration of the City of Hudson.
To the north, everything south of Mill Street's western extension was claimed by the Proprietors.
Look at any map: Furgary lies south of the Mill Street extension.
For more details on the same:
The 1839 maps shows the numbered lots of the Proprietors running north to meet the boundary of the future Mill Street. (That boundary is not the city's boundary which is still further north.)
In 1839, the still unfinished streets of Hudson were configured on maps as straight projections of their existing portions.
At every watery edge of the city, the old maps show streets like Mill to the north, and Second Street into South Bay, as continuations of existing streets projected straight out over the Proprietor's underwater lands.
Looking at any map or satellite photo of Hudson, one easily sees that Furgary lies south of the Mill Street extension, and so occupies land once divided up by the Proprietors.
It is - or was - a fascinating case. But the Furgarians typically rejected any outside help.
The case wasn't decided on the basis of maps or anything else documentary; it was decided on procedural grounds: the association brought their suit too late -- it was, to use the legal lingo, "time barred." They waited when it was a mistake for them to do so given the relatively clear state of the law in this regard. What the maps show is besides the point: the statute of limitations bit them in the ass, as it sometimes does even to meritorious claims. And that, as they say, is that. We can debate the purpose and the operations of statutes of limitation but they exist, in short, to provide certainty to the involved parties and to ensure that judicial decisions are contemporaneous to the issues brought before the tribunals. The length of the statute is determined, it seems, on the importance/heinousness of the alleged bad act and the availability of evidence, particularly eyewitness evidence. Thus, for murder, there is no statute of limitations -- the crime is the most evil our body of law contemplates; for quitetude to title to land, it is rather short. Frankly, they had over 100 years to seek to quite their title and they decided not to. What else could the court do at this point? It's unfortunate that a rather unique piece of the City is likely now to become part of its history regardless.
ReplyDeleteYes, after reading the court document I had also acknowledged the time-barred nature of the petition in my 2nd comment above.
ReplyDeleteBut the "Memorandum and Order" also went into detail about the site, and I see no reason not to point out that the following statement is incorrect and totally outrageous:
"Respondents rely in particular upon the language in the 1785 legislation describing the property conveyed to the proprietors [...] AND ON AN 1839 MAP depicting the location of this property along the high water mark and the contours of the river as it existed at that time, including the area of the North Bay where petitioners' cabins are now located, as well [...] REVEALING THAT THE LAND where petitioners' cabins are now located WAS NOT INCLUDED among these grants. We agree with Supreme Court that these documents, as supplemented by other MAPS, deeds and surveys submitted by respondents, CONCLUSIVELY DEMONSTRATE that the property where petitioners' cabins are now located LIES WHOLLY NORTH and east of the land conveyed to the proprietors, THAT NO PART OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY was included in the 1785 conveyance, and that the property remained in State ownership until the letters patent were issued to the City."
The caps and emphases in the above excerpt are mine, but the fallacious reasoning belongs to the City of Hudson and to the Appellate Division of the New York state Supreme Court.