Woodstone Lakes Dev., LLC v Iroquois Hunting & Fishing Club, Inc.
Annotate this CaseDecided on July 14, 2009
Supreme Court, Sullivan County
Woodstone Lakes Development, LLC, Plaintiff,
against
Iroquois Hunting and Fishing Club, Inc., Defendant.
2399/07
The Law Offices of Diane Van Epps Finnegan, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant
8390 Turnberry Drive
Syracuse, New York 13104
By: Diane V. Finegan, Esq.
Stoloff & Silver, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
26 Hamilton Avenue, PO Box 1129
Monticello, New York 12701
By: Richard A. Stoloff, Esq.
Frank J. LaBuda, J.
In this RPAPL Article 15 proceeding which resurrects a boundary line dispute between the plaintiff's predecessor in title and defendant, defendant seeks summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that plaintiff has failed to name a necessary party. Plaintiff opposes the motion and cross-moves for discovery. Defendant opposes the cross-motion.
It is undisputed that plaintiff's predecessor in title and defendant, adjoining real property owners, entered into a boundary line agreement dated February 5, 1975 which is recorded in the Sullivan County Clerk's Office in Liber 805 at page 554. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that defendant has incorrectly located and posted the agreed upon boundary line along a line which is wholly within the alleged boundaries of plaintiff's real property. Defendant's counterclaim alleges; that the boundary line, as presently posted, was first walked, agreed upon and posted by both plaintiff's predecessor in title and defendant in 1978, three years after the boundary line agreement was arrived at; that plaintiff has continuously posted the boundary line in its present location since 1978 without complaint from plaintiff's predecessor in title; and that plaintiff [*2]seeks title to 78 acres of defendants lands by erroneously referencing the southerly line of the Town of Bethel as depicted in the Webb survey of 1762, whereas the 1975 boundary line agreement references the southerly line of the Town of Bethel as depicted in the Cockburn & Tappen survey of 1790.
On the motion, defendant asserts that in 2003, it transferred to the United States of America a Warranty Easement Deed Perpetual, recorded in the Sullivan County Clerk's Office at Liber 2571 of Deeds at Page 555, to wetlands purportedly wholly located on its property; that plaintiff is now alleging ownership of lands which includes a substantial portion of the lands subject to the easement; and that prior to the commencement of this action on August 6, 2007, plaintiff was aware of the transfer of the easement as evidenced by the reference to the easement on the uncertified July 27, 2007 Lawson survey map prepared for plaintiff. Defendant argues that pursuant to RPAPL 1511(2), the United States is a necessary party to an action to quiet title to real property upon which it holds an easement; and as the United States may only be sued in the federal district court in an action to quiet title (see 28 U.S.C. §§2409a, 1346[f]), this proceeding must be dismissed.
Alternatively, in the event that the Court denies the motion, then defendant seeks an order directing that plaintiff be required to file and serve an amended complaint asserting a boundary line which does not include the real property subject to the easement granted to the United States and directing that the location of such boundary line be definitely described in the complaint as required by RPAPL 1515.
In opposition, plaintiff does not dispute the 2003 United Sates easement and states that it did not (representations in its complaint to the contrary) and does not (if successful in the litigation) intend to challenge the easement.
CPLR 1001(b) allows joinder to be excused only if the party is subject to the jurisdiction of the court. As the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of the court in a quiet title action (28 U.S.C. §1346[f]), the court cannot provide a protective provision in a judgment and thus excuse joinder (see CPLR 1001[b]). Plaintiff's representation on the motion does not overcome the legal impediment of 28 U.S.C. 1346(f) to the Court's jurisdiction.
The owner of an easement is a necessary party to a quiet title proceeding (see Schaffer v Landolfo, 27 AD3d 812 [3rd Dept 2006] or Hitchcock v Boyack, 256 AD2d 842 [3rd Dept 1998]). The United States is a party with an interest which "might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action" (CPLR 1001[a]) and is entitled to protect its interest in the real property at issue (see Hitchcock v Boyack at 844).
Nor has plaintiff provided a certified survey or other admissible proof showing that it's [*3]claim does not include lands encumbered by the United States easement. Rather, plaintiff's offer not to challenge the easement implicitly admits that some of the disputed acreage is encumbered by the easement.
The plaintiff has an effective remedy in federal court and has failed to demonstrate any prejudice by dismissal of this action.
Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss is granted (see CPLR 1001[a]; RPAPL 1511[2]; Schaffer v Landolfo, supra; Hitchcock v Boyack, supra) and the complaint is dismissed, without prejudice; likewise, defendant's counterclaim to quiet title is dismissed, without prejudice (see CPLR 3212[b]), as a judgment therein might affect the interest of the United States as established in the easement.
Plaintiff's cross-motion for discovery is denied as moot.
This shall constitute the decision and order of this court. The original Decision & Order and
all papers are being filed in the Sullivan County Clerk's Office. Counsel are not relieved from the
provisions of CPLR 2220 regarding service with notice of entry.
Dated:July 14, 2009
Monticello, New York
________________________________________
Hon. Frank J. LaBuda
Acting Justice of the Supreme Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
