Parrino v. People, 210 A.D.3d 898, 179 N.Y.S.3d 116 (2022)
Facts
Plaintiff property owner brought action against County of Suffolk (the county), State of New York (the state), and Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) claiming he owned underwater lots in fee simple and was not required to obtain a permit from the county or DEC to cultivate and harvest any type of shellfish by any method.1
Procedural History
Pursuant to RPAPL Article 15 for judgment declaring property owner has fee simple title to all subject properties, the plaintiff appealed to Suffolk County Supreme Court from an order issued on April 22, 2019.2
Issue
Did the property owner acquire title to underwater lots in fee simple?
Rationale
Before 1884, the state owned underwater lands in both Peconic and Gardiner’s bays except for lands already granted or reserved.3 In 1884, New York State granted title to underwater lands in Peconic and Gardiner’s bays to the county subject to condition subsequent that if the land ceased to be used for “oyster culture,” the lots would revert back to the state.4 In 2004, Paradise Point Oyster Farms, Inc., owned by the plaintiff, purchased two underwater lots in Gardiner’s bay and subsequently conveyed the lots to the plaintiff by deed on December 12, 2008.5 In 2014, the plaintiff commenced this action seeking a judgment declaring his fee simple title to subject underwater lots and that he was not required to obtain a permit from DEC or the county and that he could cultivate and harvest shellfish by any method.6
The state may convey fee interest in underwater lands to an individual or corporation.7 However, grants should be construed strictly and “nothing is granted thereby unless expressly.”8 In this case, a provision was made by the state for reverter if the land ceased to be used for “oyster culture,” and thus the plaintiff did not acquire title to the subject lots in fee simple.9 Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendants have the right to regulate both the planting and taking of shellfish with respect to the lots in question.10
Conclusion
Order affirmed. As this action is in part for a declaratory judgment, the matter was remitted to the Suffolk County Supreme Court for entry of judgment, inter alia, making appropriate declarations in accordance herewith.11
Jocelynn Joy Buti
Albany Law School, Class of 2024
Endnotes
1 Parrino v. People, 210 A.D.3d 898, 898 (2022).
3 Id. at 899; see generally Dicanio v. Incorporated Vil. of Nissequogue, 189 A.D.2d 223, 227 (1993).
4 Parrino, supra note 1 at 899; see L 1884, ch 385, § 1.
5 Parrino, supra note 1 at 899.
10 Parrino, supra note 1 at 899; see ECL § 13-0302.
11 Parrino, supra note 1 at 899-900; Lanza v. Wagner, 229 N.Y.S.2d 380 (1962).
