## Facts

- Spring Creek Park is a New York City public park.
- The City of New York Department of Sanitation received a state permit to operate a solid-waste/composting facility on an approximately 20-acre portion of land within Spring Creek Park.
- The City intended to compost organic material at the facility and use the resulting compost at City parks.
- The facility area was fenced off from the rest of the park, preventing public use of the fenced area.
- Petitioners asserted that the fenced area contained heaps of full garbage bags and that City staff used bulldozers and other heavy equipment to move materials.
- Petitioners also alleged that odors and noise from the facility traveled into nearby neighborhoods.
- Raritan Baykeeper, Inc. (with individual petitioners) brought a declaratory-judgment and injunctive proceeding against the City, the Department of Sanitation, and the Department of Parks & Recreation, alleging the facility was an improper use of parkland under New York’s public trust doctrine.
- After submission of documentary evidence, petitioners moved for summary judgment; respondents cross-moved for dismissal/summary judgment. Petitioners also sought consolidation with a separate proceeding challenging the state permit.

## Issues

1. Whether operating a fenced, permitted composting/solid-waste facility on a portion of dedicated parkland is an unlawful alienation or diversion of parkland requiring specific authorization from the New York State Legislature under the public trust doctrine.
2. Whether excluding the public from the fenced portion of the park, while the facility operates, itself establishes an improper non-park use.
3. Whether alleged odors, noise, and similar neighborhood impacts change the public trust doctrine analysis in this declaratory-judgment action.

## Decision

- The court denied petitioners’ motion for summary judgment.
- The court granted respondents’ cross-motion and dismissed the petition/claim for declaratory and injunctive relief based on the public trust doctrine.
- The court declined to consolidate this action with the separate proceeding challenging the state agency’s solid-waste permit.

## Legal Principles

- New York’s public trust doctrine treats dedicated municipal parkland as held in trust for the public; a substantial or long-term diversion of parkland to non-park purposes generally requires specific legislative approval.
- Courts look to the nature of the challenged use and whether it has a real and substantial connection to park purposes, including municipal park operations, rather than relying solely on labels such as “sanitation” or “solid waste.”
- The City has managerial discretion over park administration, including siting operational or support functions on park property, so long as the use is not a clear conversion to a non-park purpose that amounts to alienation.
- Limiting access to a portion of parkland (for safety, operations, or maintenance) does not automatically constitute alienation when the restriction is tied to a park-related governmental function and the park remains public parkland.
- Complaints about odors, noise, and operational effects may be addressed through permitting, environmental review, or nuisance-type theories, but such allegations do not, by themselves, establish a public trust doctrine violation in the absence of a showing that the land has been diverted to a non-park purpose requiring legislative approval.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court, Kings County held that the City’s operation of a fenced composting facility on a portion of Spring Creek Park—intended to process organic material into compost for use in City parks—did not constitute an unlawful alienation of parkland under the public trust doctrine, denied petitioners’ summary judgment motion, granted respondents’ cross-motion, and dismissed the petition.


Raritan Baykeeper v. City of New York, 984 N.Y.S.2d 634 (2013)