| Village of Mamaroneck v Town of Rye |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08445 [45 AD3d 577] |
| November 7, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Village of Mamaroneck, Plaintiff, v Town of Rye et al.,Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants. New York State Thruway Authority et al.,Third-Party Defendants-Respondents; Town of Mamaroneck, Third-PartyDefendant-Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles T. Randall, Albany, N.Y., for third-party defendant-respondent New York StateThruway Authority. Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael Belohlavek and Ann P.Zybert of counsel), for third-party defendant-respondent New York State Department ofTransportation.
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendants third-party plaintiffs areresponsible for repairing and maintaining the superstructure and substructure of the North BarryAvenue Extension Bridge, the defendants third-party plaintiffs Town of Rye, Village of PortChester, and Village of Rye Brook, and the third-party defendant Town of Mamaroneck appealfrom a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), entered December 22,2005, which, after a nonjury trial, in effect, declared that the defendants third-party plaintiffsTown of Rye, Village of Port Chester, and Village of Rye Brook, the third-party defendant Townof Mamaroneck, and the plaintiff Village of Mamaroneck are solely responsible for maintainingand repairing the superstructure and substructure of the North Barry Avenue Extension Bridge.
Ordered that the appeal by the defendants third-party plaintiffs Town of Rye, Village of PortChester, and Village of Rye Brook, and the third-party defendant Town of Mamaroneck from somuch of the judgment as, in effect, declared that the plaintiff Village of Mamaroneck isresponsible for maintaining and repairing the superstructure and substructure of the [*2]North Barry Avenue Extension Bridge, is dismissed, as they are notaggrieved by that portion of the judgment (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the third-party defendants-respondents.
The Supreme Court properly determined that responsibility for maintaining and repairing thesuperstructure and substructure of the North Barry Avenue Extension Bridge (hereinafter theBridge) reverted by operation of law to the defendants third-party plaintiffs Town of Rye, Villageof Port Chester, and Village of Rye Brook, and to the third-party defendant Town ofMamaroneck (hereinafter collectively the appellants) upon completion of the Bridge'sconstruction. We discern no basis to disturb the Supreme Court's determination as it was"warranted by the facts" in the record (Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. vTown of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; see Wright v Cetek Tech., Inc., 25 AD3d 602 [2006]; Huron St. Realty Corp. v Lorenzo, 19AD3d 450, 451 [2005]). The overwhelming evidence established that a letter datedDecember 26, 1959, by the New York State Department of Public Works (hereinafter the Letter),was typical of the reversion letters routinely sent to local municipalities when road or bridgerelocation work was completed. There was little or no evidence to support the appellants'contention that the Letter was, in effect, an agreement by the third-party defendants New YorkState Thruway Authority and New York State Department of Transportation to shareresponsibility for the maintenance and repair of the Bridge with the local municipalities.
We note that to the extent the brief filed on behalf of the appellants purports to be on behalfof the plaintiff, no notice of appeal was filed on the plaintiff's behalf. Since the appellants are notaggrieved by that portion of the judgment which, in effect, declared that the plaintiff isresponsible for maintaining and repairing the superstructure and substructure of the Bridge, wemust dismiss their appeal from that portion of the judgment and that issue has not beenconsidered on this appeal.
The appellants' remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or withoutmerit. Crane, J.P., Ritter, Dillon and Carni, JJ., concur. [See 11 Misc 3d 1054(A), 2005NY Slip Op 52268(U) (2005).]