consequently his trespass claim fails. E. Infringement of Riparian Rights Even if his trespass claim should fail because he cannot prove ownership to the foreshore, Plaintiff further argues that the barges constitute a physical interference with his riparian rights as upland owner of 175 Ellis Street. PI. 8/20/03 Br. at 99. While most of the applicable cases for this issue are relatively old, New York’s highest court has reaffirmed recently that “riparian owners still enjoy their full panoply of rights, subject only to the long-recognized navigational servitude.” Adirondack League Club, Inc. v. Sierra Club et al., 92 N.Y.2d 591, 603, 684 N.Y.S.2d 168, 706 N.E.2d 1192 (1998). Plaintiff does not claim that the State granted or leased to him the land und y, 100 F.2d 360, 363 (2d Cir.1938) (<HOLDING>); Allen v. Potter, 64 Misc.2d 938, 316 N.Y.S.2d
holding that judge had power to limit ingress and egress of persons during counsels final arguments because it was a reasonable limitation to prevent disturbance holding that city may by ordinance require abutting landowner to repair sidewalk but that the abutting landowner is not liable in an action in tort for injuries holding that wetlands adjacent to navigable waters are included in the term territorial waters holding that appellant landowner who complained of a sewer pipe being laid offshore his property had the incorporeal right to free ingress and egress to abutting navigable waters holding that regulatory restrictions on abutting landowners right of ingress and egress are not compensable when landowner has adequate alternative means to access property