What is the meaning of “for any purpose”?

That and the definition of “private road” may determine the outcome of Toronto Reservoir case

By FRITZ MAYER

MONTICELLO, NY — The words “for any purpose” are at the center of a lawsuit involving Smallwood resident Bob Barrett and Woodstone Development Corp. At a hearing in Monticello on October 26, Judge Robert Sackett brought attention to the phrase numerous times while questioning lawyers about their interpretations of the case.

The words are crucial because they are part of an easement recorded in deeds, dating back to 1971, for hundreds of acres of land bordering the Toronto Reservoir. Woodstone purchased the land from Orange and Rockland Utilities (O&R) in 2000. All four attorneys who spoke at the hearing, agreed that O&R had the right to use the roads on the property to maintain the power plant on the dam, of which O&R retained ownership. The lawyers also agreed that the right transferred to Mirant when that company took possession of the reservoir and power plant in 2002. But the lawyers disagreed that the words “for any purpose” meant that Mirant could use the roads to allow residents to get to the Toronto Reservoir to use the lake for recreational purposes.

Attorney Howard Block, who is representing residents Dr. Herman Goldfarb and Mary Ann Burke, told the judge that the easement does provide Mirant the right to allow members of the public to use the road. Moreover, he said, as a condition of its license to operate the power plant, Mirant is required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to provide the public access to the dam; therefore it is obligated to use the easement for the purpose of doing business, and members of the public who used the road were “business invitees.”

Richard Stoloff, the attorney representing Woodstone and its principal Steve Dubrovsky, said the words “for any purpose” did not include turning a private road into a public road. He said the related documents invariably referred to the road in question as “private,” and that allowing any and all members of the public to travel on it would change the nature of the road from private to public.

Russell Schindler, the attorney representing Robert Barrett, disagreed. He said that in this case “private” was simply a classification, indicating that neither the state nor the town were responsible for the maintenance and repair of the road; instead, that responsibility fell to private owners. Schindler also argued that the public would not be permitted to use the road for purposes such as door-to-door selling in the gated community; the public would only be allowed to use the road to get to the reservoir. With this “limited use” Schindler said, the road would not become a “public” road.

Doug Nash, the attorney representing Mirant, said that his interpretation of the document was different from the previous two. The word “private” in his view was merely a way of identifying which roads in the easement were being discussed, and did not mean to imply any particular status regarding any use by the public.

A jury may ultimately decide the definition of “for any purpose” in this case, and though it was the focus of much of the discussion, it was not the central question facing the judge at this particular hearing. The specific purpose of the hearing was to decide if Goldfarb and Burke could become interveners in the lawsuit, thereby joining Barrett in his attempt to force Dubrovsky and Woodstone to open the locked gate across the road while the case moves forward, and whether the gate should be unlocked while the trial moves forward.

Barrett’s lawsuit has several parts, and Block said his clients, Goldfarb and Burke, have a right to join the part of suit concerning the opening of the gate. Mirant, he said, was not forcing Woodstone to live up to the terms of the easement; therefore, his clients had a right to step in and do so. Goldfarb and Burke both testified briefly that they had used the road for years to get to the reservoir.

Stoloff argued, however, that because the public had no right to be on the road in the first place, Goldfarb and Burke had no right to intervene. He also added that no decision about unlocking the gate could be made because not all of the parties involved have been notified about that possibility. Specifically, the people who bought the lots along the road, and who are now part of the homeowners association that now owns the road, were not informed of the possibility of the changing status of the gate.

Nash questioned whether Stoloff “really wants to litigate” the question of the new property owners at this point, and indicated if Stoloff persisted along that line he, Nash, would “move for discovery.” Stoloff dropped the matter.

The judge asked if there was any “burning reason” to make a quick decision about the unlocking of the gate.

Block replied that the trial could take years, and if the gate were to remain locked for that time, his clients would be denied access to a part of the reservoir they had been visiting for years.

The judge did not say when he would issue a ruling, but it is expected to come within 60 days.