Haher’s Sodus Point Bait Shop, Inc. v. Wigle, 139 A.D.2d 950, 951, 528 N.Y.S.2d 244, 246 (4th Dep’t.1988), citing Town of Hempstead v. Oceanside Yacht Harbor, Inc., 38 A.D.2d 263, 328 N.Y.S.2d 894, 896 (2d Dept 1972) (citing Tiffany, and holding that “[t]he right of access comprehends the reasonable, safe, and convenient use of the foreshore for navigation”); see also Stutchin v. Town of Huntington, 71 F.Supp.2d 76, 100-101 (E.D.N.Y.1999), Bravo v. Terstiege, 196 A.D.2d 473, 601 N.Y.S.2d 129 (2d Dep’t.1993). The Haher’s court conducted this reasonable access analysis looking “to the character and size of the ... activities on the land under water to determine whether under the circumstances they represent a reasonable exercise of [the] right of access.” Haher’s, 528 N.Y.S.2d at 247 (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, many factors are
holding that petitioners construction of commercial dockage over more than anacreandahalf of public waters  exceeded the reasonable scope of the common law rights it has acquired by virtue of its owership of a small parcel of riparian land holding after analysis of tiffany and other similar cases that well over a century of common law adjudication has established the riparian owers right to reasonable access holding that waters in utah are of two classes private and public and title to public waters is in the public all are equal owners that is have coequal rights therein recognizing that in hilt it was held that the boundary line of riparian owners along the great lakes is the waters edge and not the meander line the riparian owner has the right to accretion recognizing under hilt that a riparian owner has use of the land to the waters edge including any new land occurring through accretions or reliction