New York Court of Appeals, 1965

Clark v. State

New York Court of Appeals · Decided April 15, 1965 · Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke, Scileppi and Bergan Concur

15 N.Y.2d 990; 207 N.E.2d 606; 260 N.Y.S.2d 10; 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1455

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Kravec v. State of New York (N.Y. 1976)
Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. Lado (Va. 1980)
State v. Sun Oil Company (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1978)
Utilities & Industries Corp. v. State (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 1965)
Kravec v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)
Lake George Associates v. State (N.Y. 2006)
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Great Bend Aggregates, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
In re the Acquisition of Real Property by Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
County of Onondaga v. Sargent (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
McLaughlin v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
Lorig v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1977)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Memorandum: The orders should be affirmed, without costs. The easement is to be construed strictly against the State and Power Authority and, at the very least, claimants possess “ the right and privilege of using such property, provided the exercise of such right and privilege does not interfere with or prevent the user and exercise of the permanent easement ” as well as “ the absolute right to cross the said lands covered by the easement for purposes of ingress and egress, including the right to build roads across the said lands and to have the right in perpetuity to use said roads.” Further concessions made by the State and the Authority in this court amplify that stipulation by conceding that it includes not merely the right of ingress and egress and to build roads on the surface of the land, but also to construct and maintain electric, telephone, water, gas, sewer and other customary wires and conduits or other usual utility structures, above or below ground at suitable locations in conjunction therewith. (Cf. Holden v. City of New York, 7 N Y 2d 840.) It follows that, if the State or Power Authority later interferes with these rights of claimants, they will have to answer for a de facto appropriation (Jafco Realty Corp. v. State of New York, 14 N Y 2d 556).

Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke, Scileppi and Bergan concur.

Orders affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.