Taylor v. Taylor II

The trial court ruled on summary judgment that the subdivision provision of the conservation easement was void and unenforceable. The appellate court overturned this ruling in a resoundlingly pro conservation ruling.

The trial court conducted a lengthy bench trial and ultimately ruled in favor of challenger to land trust title. The appellate court reversed, finding several flaws with the trial court's analysis.

The State and County objected to the tax foreclosure due to the division prohibition. The trial court agreed. The appellate court reversed, finding that revenue-raising outweighed the state goal of keeping whole farms intact. The court ruled the conservation easement survived the foreclosure.

The trial court conducted a lengthy bench trial and ultimately ruled in favor of Fink. The appellate court reversed, finding several flaws with the trial court's analysis. New York Court of Appeals refused to hear an appeal

The appellate court upheld the trial court's finding on the holder's subdivision prohibition and its balancing decision, finding that MALPF's interest in preserving large blocks of agricultural land outweighed any harm to Stitzel.

The court granted preliminary injunction barring sale by foreclosure as such sale would violate the easement’s prohibition on division which the court concluded was not an unreasonable restraint on alienation.

The court found that there is support in the record for the trial court's finding, affirmed by the Appellate Division (99 AD2d 600), that the easement did not diminish the highest and best use of petitioner's retained property so there was no property tax reduction.

Trial court finds that legislation approving conversion of park satisfied state constitutional requirements. This is the appellate court’s decision affirming the trial court.

The appellate court reversed the trial court on the collateral estoppel issue, finding that the earlier property tax action did not address the issue of the validity of the easement. However, the appellate court went on to rule for the town based on the statute of limitations defense.

Appellate court finds that the prior public use doctrine applies to the taking of an agricultural conservation easement for a natural gas pipeline easement and sends back to the trial court for a determination of whether the pipeline easement would destroy the agricultural uses of the property.