RIVERVIEW PARTNERS, LP v. CITY OF PEEKSKILL

ORDERED that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the cross motion is denied, and it is declared that the subject property is a public park.

In the absence of a formal dedication of land for public use, an implied dedication may exist when a municipality's acts and declarations manifest a present, fixed, and unequivocal intent to dedicate (see, Cook v. Harris, 61 N.Y. 448, 454; Winston v. Village Of Scarsdale, 170 A.D.2d 672, 673; Village of Croton-On-Hudson v. County of Westchester, 38 A.D.2d 979, affd 30 N.Y.2d 959; Gerwirtz v. City of Long Beach, 69 Misc.2d 763, 770, affd 45 A.D.2d 841). Once established, the dedication is irrevocable (see, Cook v. Harris, supra, at 453; Matter of Ellington Constr. Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of New Hempstead, 152 A.D.2d 365, affd 77 N.Y.2d 114).

Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the defendant established an implied dedication by submission of evidence demonstrating that the subject property was purchased in 1929 for park purposes, was named "Fort Hill Park" on various city maps and on a sign at the park entrance, was used by the public as a park since its purchase, and was maintained and improved by the defendant for park and historic purposes (see, Cook v. Harris, supra, at 454; Village of Croton-On-Hudson v. County of Westchester, supra, at 98 0; Gerwirtz v. City of Long Beach, supra). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to submit sufficient evidence to create an issue of fact regarding the implied dedication.