Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.



March 31, 1998


Arthur D. Spatt, United States District Judge.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: SPATT


SPATT, District Judge.

 The United States House of Representatives made the following observation of Jamaica Bay in a report of the proposed Gateway National Park:


The natural values of the area are astonishing. Here, one can escape the maddening crowds and be exposed to a wildlife sanctuary. Against the backdrop of the Manhattan skyline, he can observe numerous species of waterfowl and shorebirds that use the area as a nesting ground.

 The saga of the development of the marina in Broad Channel known as the "Schmitt Marina," closely tracks the interesting history of the community in Queens County known as "Broad Channel," the only inhabited island in Jamaica Bay, known as the "Venice of New York" and the "Gateway to the Rockaways."


 During these many hearings, the Court was furnished with a number of maps and aerial photographs and a history of Jamaica Bay (Def. Ex. C) which greatly aided the Court's endeavors. Also, the Court notes that the defendant John Schmitt personally obtained from the City of New York and other sources a plethora of maps, charts, photographs and other documents. These documents were of valuable assistance to the Court in its task of discerning the evolving history of the Broad Channel Community and recording a chronological review of the events that are relevant to these proceedings.

  Jamaica Bay is located in the western portion of the south shore of Long Island. The Rockaway Peninsula is to the south of Jamaica Bay and is a long, narrow piece of land which forms a barrier between Jamaica Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. Jamaica Bay is bordered on the north by the mainland of Brooklyn, Queens and Nassau Counties.

 Jamaica Bay is an estuary, meaning a boy of ocean water diluted by fresh water runoffs from the land north of the Bay consisting of 18,000 acres of land and water in the shadow of the World Trade Center. It is one the largest open spaces in Brooklyn and Queens, and is operated as a wildlife preserve. This grassy bay has become a haven for a multitude of fish, animal and floral wildlife. Jamaica Bay also is a stopover for migrating birds of all kinds. The grasses in the Bay provide prime spawning ground for a myriad of species of fish and minute animal life.

 In the late nineteenth century there was a considerable development of Rockaway Beach, both in hotels and other residences. In the 1880s, a train track was constructed over the water of Jamaica Bay from the then Village of Jamaica south to the Rockaways. This rail line triggered further development of the Rockaways. On the path to the Rockaways, the trains stopped at a number of "fishing stations" along Jamaica Bay. These fishing stations, located in the middle of the bay, were docks at which fishing boats were tied up with a few buildings around the station.

 One of the fishing stations in Jamaica Bay was called "Broad Channel," named for the channel near the station. The 1890 Hyde map and enlargement (Pl. Exs. 48 and 49) *fn1" reveal that the Broad Channel Fishing Station was comprised of four or five buildings located on a small island north of a larger, uninhabited, grass island called "The Big Egg Marsh," separated by a salt water channel. A photograph probably taken in the early 1900s, shows people waiting for a train at the "L.I.R.R. Ticket Office" at the "Broad Channel" station (Pl. Ex. 56).

 A 1907 map of Jamaica Bay shows an area designated "sand filling" (Pl. Ex. 57, Tr. at 5459). *fn2" This area eventually became part of Jamaica Bay Boulevard, later renamed Cross Bay Boulevard, which traverses the Bay from the Belt Parkway area to the Rockaways in a generally north-south direction. (See the artist's rendering of Jamaica Bay Boulevard made in the early 1900, [Pl. Ex. 53].) During this period the saltwater passage between Broad Channel Island and Big Egg Marsh Island was filled in. From that time on, the two islands effectively merged into one, variously called Broad Channel and Big Egg Marsh.

 A. The Noel Lease

 In 1912, the New York State Legislature granted to the City of New York ("the City") title to the land and land under water in Jamaica Bay. On December 16, 1914, the City leased a boot-shaped parcel, which included Broad Channel and the Big Egg Marsh, to a developer named Pierre Noel, whose company was called the Broad Channel Corporation. Noel intended to use the leasehold for residential and commercial purposes (Def. Ex. B-152). The Jamaica Bay History (Def. Ex. C) records that in 1914 "all of Big Egg Marsh was leased to Pierre Noel for a term of ten years . . [with] the right to renew the lease for two ten-year terms." The area leased was described as comprising "454.22 acres" (Def. Ex. B-152). A 1914 map indicates that the entire Broad Channel area was called "Big Egg Marsh," was unsettled and without any buildings. (Def. Ex. B-152). However, by 1947, Broad Channel was divided into blocks and lots, and only the marsh area to the south and in the toe of the boot was called "Big Egg Marsh" (Def. Ex. 153).

 An important document, often referred to during the trial, is what is known as the Noel Developer's Map (City Ex. DA). This map, entitled "Map of Broad Channel Beach," depicts Noel's development plan for a proposed "Broad Channel Beach." In this map, Noel laid out a network of streets and numbered blocks-lots in the portion of the boot-shaped parcel that eventually was developed into a residential and commercial area. The area to be developed shows 19 small parallel canals running in an east-west direction, to be dredged on the west side of Jamaica Bay Boulevard (now known as Cross Bay Boulevard). The canals are interspersed with short streets coming off the west side of Jamaica Bay Boulevard at right angles. (See Appendix Figure 1).

 The Noel Developer's Map reveals that a large part of the southerly portion of the boot-shaped leasehold, the foot of the boot, was left undeveloped and in its natural state. There were no streets or canals in that southern portion. This undeveloped southern portion is referred to as the "Big Egg Marsh," the same name as the entire large marsh island now known as Broad Channel was formerly known. This area, south of the flourishing Broad Channel Community, has remained undeveloped to this day, and is the home of countless fish, bird, animal and other wildlife species.

 Noel leased portions of the developed land in Broad Channel to individuals for residential and business purposes. Apparently Noel encountered financial difficulties during the Depression, and the City terminated his lease in 1939. From that time on, the City assumed the role of direct landlord to the former subtenants of Noel and all other tenants of Broad Channel. These lessees, almost all residential, then became month-to-month tenants of the City. The leases issued by the City used the block and lot designations set forth on the Developer's Map. The southerly marsh area, including the Big Egg Marsh, remained natural and undeveloped.

 In tracing the historical development of the Broad Channel Community, there is some confusion caused by the fact that in some documents the names "Broad Channel" and "Big Egg Marsh" were used interchangeably to describe the same property. A good illustration of this interchange of names is shown in the pamphlet entitled "Jamaica Bay, A History" (Def. Ex. C). The first map in the pamphlet dated in 1911, prior to the Noel development (Figure 16), refers to the entire boot-shaped area as "Big Egg Marsh." However, the third map in the pamphlet dated 1940 (Figure 18), designates only the southerly undeveloped portion of the boot as "Big Egg Marsh".

 B. The Robert Moses Plan

 By the 1930s, New York City Parks Commissioner Robert Moses had plans for the 18,000 acres of water, marshland and meadowland in Jamaica Bay as "offering unlimited possibilities for recreational and residential development . . . [on] the natural grassy islands." He envisioned public use of the meadowlands adjoining Cross Bay Boulevard, including Big Egg Marsh, and purification of the Bay's polluted waters. (Def. Ex. C). Moses also proposed to transfer all the islands of the Bay to the Department of Parks for recreational use, including fishing and boating, and for the preservation of wildlife.

 The Moses vision was realized when the City transferred most of the Bay and its marsh islands, except a portion of Big Egg Marsh, to be retained by the Bureau of Real Estate, to the New York City Department of Parks on July 15, 1945. (N.Y.C. Local Law Nos. 31 and 32; Def. Ex. B-319). The city park area was known as the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge. As noted in all the local laws and documents, and is stipulated by the parties, the boot-shaped area known as Broad Channel and Big Egg Marsh was not part of this City park land.

 In 1946, the City formally adopted a street map for Broad Channel (City Ex. DB). The City continued to issue leases for occupancy of portions of Broad Channel. By 1982 there were approximately 900 residential tenancies and 50 commercial tenancies on Broad Channel. (Tr. at 6857-6858). A 1941 map, undated to 1951 by the United States Engineer's Office (Pl. Ex. 40), clearly shows this developed area of Broad Channel and the undeveloped area known as the Big Egg Marsh.

 C. The Gateway National Park

 On October 27, 1972, Congress passed an act to establish the Gateway National Recreation Area. The actual conveyance of the property from the City of New York to the Federal Government occurred on March 1, 1974. The stated purpose of the Gateway Act is "to preserve and protect for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations an area possessing outstanding natural recreational features." The Gateway National Park includes Jamaica Bay, Breezy Point and Sandy Hook. In the Gateway National Park is the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge which encompasses "all islands, marshes, hassocks, submerged lands and waters in Jamaica Bay, Floyd Bennett Field, the lands generally located between highway Route 27A and Jamaica Bay up to the shoreline of John F. Kennedy International Airport." 16 U.S.C. § 460cc(a). The Gateway National Park does not include the Broad Channel Community.

 Among the provisions of the Gateway Act is the following:


that the Secretary of the Interior) shall administer and protect the islands and water within the Jamaica Bay Unit with the primary aim of conserving the natural resources, fish, and wildlife located therein and shall permit no development or use of this area which is incompatible with this purpose.

 16 U.S.C. § 460cc(a).

 In addition to the enthusiastic and descriptive language in the House of Representative Report cited in the opening words of this opinion, the United States Senate report on the bill which became the Gateway Act also praised Jamaica Bay:


Jamaica Bay fascinates biologists and the nature-minded not only for its wealth of birdlife but also because of the seemingly sturdy health of its ecological communities in the midst of unhealthy conditions. Though poor in its water purity rating, it is rich in fish and wildlife. Some 200 species of birds have been reported in Jamaica Bay at breeding and migration periods. It is strategic nesting ground for birds along the Atlantic flyway. To have this outdoor research laboratory within a region of 20 million people is of underminable value.

 Sen Report No. 92-345, p.4.

 The map depicting the outer perimeter of the Gateway National Recreational Area, dated May 1972, was admitted in evidence as Def. Ex. B-555(a). As stated above, the Gateway Act excluded the Broad Channel Community. While the Gateway Act defined the outer perimeter of Jamaica Bay to be included within the national park, Congress did not fix the borders of the Broad Channel Community. The Gateway National park boundaries were established by the United States National Park Service and the City in a "Gateway Conveyance Map" adopted in 1973 (Pl. Ex. 38B-1).

 A review of the crucial Gateway Conveyance Map reflects that the Broad Channel Community area was excluded from the Gateway conveyance by the City to the United States. Significantly, the southwestern, lower portion of the boot, labeled the "Big Egg Marsh," is clearly within the grant of the City to the Gateway National Recreational Area, and since 1973, is owned by and within the jurisdiction of the United States National Park Service. Thus, the Court finds that while the Broad Channel Community area was excluded from the Gateway National Park, Big Egg Marsh at the foot of the boot was included in the conveyance by the City to the United States.

 By laws passed in 1973, the City decided to sell the Broad Channel property to its tenants. (Def. Exs. B-55 and B-555). In 1980 the City effectuated the plan to sell the Broad Channel property to "the homeowners" (see letter from Deputy Commissioner Herschman dated May 1, 1980; Def. Ex. B-411).

 D. The Schmitt Leaseholds

 There are three sets of leases that are relevant to the issues in this case. First, there are the leases directly involving the Schmitt Marina. Second, there are the leases to John Orean, in an area called John's Fishing Station, which eventually were assigned to the Schmitts. Third, are the leases involving the residence of Adam and Ernestine Schmitt. The Court separately will discuss each of the leases and the related documents.

 The evidence reveals that Adele Schmitt ("Adele"), mother of the defendant Adam Schmitt ("Adam") and grandmother of the defendant John Schmitt ("John") purchased a small boatyard in Broad Channel on October 19, 1944. (Def. Ex. B-33) for "vacant tide and march [sic] land" at the Foot of West 20th Road. The area she occupied was used to rent row boats and included a houseboat as an office with an unpaved access road. Water traversed under the houseboat office. At that time Adele maintained a single dock in the water. This dock which will be referred to as "Dock A," was located near the foot of West 20th Road.

 Adele obtained two permits for the area around the foot of West 20th Road. The first permit, dated January 9, 1945 (Def. Ex. SS, Pl. Ex. 33), covered an "area 50' X 100' of marsh land at foot of West 20 Road." The purpose of the occupancy was "For location of houseboat, to be used as a fishing station, and for no other purpose whatsoever." The rent was $ 8.33 per month on a month-to-month basis. The second permit was dated November 1952 for the location "Foot of West 20 Road, Part of Block 210 . . . marshland." The purpose of this occupancy was boat storage and the rent was $ 25.00 per month. (Def. Ex. TT).

 (1) The Schmitt Leases at Block 210 - Foot of West 20th Road

 Among the voluminous documents in evidence, are the marina leases from the City to Adele. The first such lease is dated July 1, 1959 (City Ex. DK, Def. Ex. B-400). The rent was $ 134 per month with a deposit of $ 268 for this monthly lease. The description of the premises leased is "Foot of West 20th Road . . . Block 210 . . . Lot (marsh land) Queens (Broad Channel)" to be used for "boat storage and fishing station." A cover letter for this lease, dated July 1, 1959 (Def. Ex. 401) stated that the premises to be leased was in Queens, Block 210, marsh land at the foot of West 20th Road. In connection with the July 1, 1959 lease, there is a memorandum in evidence dated August 12, 1959 (Def. Ex. B-402). The memorandum recites that the premises leased is "Foot of West 20 Road - Borough of Queens, Block 210 - Lot marsh land." Of importance is the description of the size of the leased premises, which is set forth as "Space - 200' by 200'." The memorandum also states that the "old agreements cancelled."

 The next lease of this land is dated April 16, 1962 (Pl. Ex. 27). The lessee is "Adele Schmitt d/b/a Adam's Fishing Station - Foot of West 20th Road" residing at "Foot of West 19th Road . . . Broad Channel, Queens, N.Y." The premises were described as "Foot of West 20th Road" at "Block 210 Lot Foot of West 20th Road -- Area 40,000 sq. ft." The premises were to be used for "boat storage in connection with fishing station." The rental was raised to $ 150 per month with a deposit of $ 300. Like the one that preceded it, this lease was a month-to-month rental. There are no leases in evidence between the City and the Schmitts for land in Block 210 or "at the foot of West 20th Road" subsequent to the 1962 lease. Approximately three years later, in 1965, Adele retired. Adam and Ernestine, his wife, took over the Schmitt boatyard. In a bill of sale dated July 5, 1965 Adele sold "a certain business" located at the foot of West 20th Road, known as Adam's Fishing Station to Adam and Ernestine (Def. Ex. B-39). The bill of sale also assigned to Adam and Ernestine the lease of the fishing station and boat storage yard.

 At the time of the Gateway conveyance, on March 1, 1974, (Pl. Ex. 5), the 1962 month-to-month lease by the City to Adele was still in effect. The lease encompassed the foot of West 20th Road, Block 210, covering an area of 40,000 square feet of waterfront land with dimensions of 200 feet by 200 feet. Indeed, this lease arrangement, which commenced in 1959, remains in effect to this day. The only changes in the terms and conditions of the successive month-to-month leases were increases in the monthly rent from $ 134 per month in 1959 to $ 229 per month at the present time, an astonishing bargain for 40,000 square feet of waterfront property (see Pl. Ex. 27, City Ex. DO). It is conceded that no part of this original 40,000 square feet of the Schmitt leasehold is on Gateway property.

 Also in evidence with regard to the Schmitt Marina leased premises at Block 210, is a letter dated May 19, 1980 from the City to the tenant of Block 210, lot 99 (Def. Ex. B-50). The letter notes that the "lease with the City dated May 1, 1975 for the property referred to above expired on April 30, 1980." The letter refers to "an interim measure" during negotiations for the sale of Broad Channel by the City to the residents, and states that the City renews the lease term for an additional one year period from May 1, 1980 to April 30, 1981, with a 50% increase in rent, and no other changes in the lease provisions.

 The Schmitt Marina eventually developed into what was described as "the largest and most substantial marina in the Board Channel area," with a capacity of 250 year round boats (Def. Ex. 00). The manner in which the Schmitt Marina developed and enlarged its areas is a key issue in this case.

 (2) The Orean Leases

 Also relevant to this controversy are the leases by the City to John Orean. The first such lease in evidence is dated July 1, 1959 (Def. Ex. B-407). It lists John Orean as tenant, with his residence office at 73 West 19th Road, Broad Channel, New York. The premises leased are at the "Foot of West 19th Road," Block 29, lots 64, 66, 68, 72, 76, 78, 80, 82 and parts of 19th Road. This property apparently was adjacent to, and north of, the Schmitt Marina and also includes a residential area (see Def. Ex. B-408). The premises were to be used for "boat storage and fishing station" and the rent was $ 93.75 per month on a month-to-month basis. The leasehold is apparently known as "John's fishing Station." There is also a part of a lease in evidence dated May 1, 1963 between the City and Orean, residing at 63 West 19th Road covering land in Block 209 (Def. Ex. B-408). On November 25, 1965, Orean assigned his "business, buildings, equipment and home" to his grandson Daniel Pasienza (Def. Exs. B-409, B-410). On April 20, 1968 Pasienza sold "John's Fishing Station" located at Block 209 to Adam and Ernestine (Def. Ex. 41).

 (3) The Adam Schmitt Leases in Block 209

 The third set of leases in this case concern an area in Broad Channel leased by Adam. The first such lease is dated June 15, 1973 (Def. Ex. B-503) for land located in Block 209, lots 52-62, and containing "approx. 15,000 sq. ft." to be used for the "storage of private boats." The rental charge was $ 60.00 per month on a month-to-month basis. The second lease in evidence involving this land is dated July 21, 1975 (Def. Ex. B-54). The description of the premises and the terms are the same as the June 15, 1973 lease.

 Also in evidence is a May 1, 1969 lease between the City and Adam and Ernestine Schmitt covering the land at Block 209 lot 74 for a five year period at the rent of $ 100.00 per month. This lease covers the use of the property as a private dwelling. In 1988, the City sold this land to Adam. The sale of the property by the City was based on the use of this property for residential purposes.


 A. The Federal Court Action

 This Federal Court action was commenced by the plaintiff United States in June, 1989. The complaint named defendants Adele Schmitt, John Schmitt and Adam Schmitt d/b/a Channel Marine Suzucki and Schmitt's Marina, as well as Adam Schmitt d/b/a Adams Fishing Station. Also named as a defendant was Carl Mednica, individually and as president of Cave Diggers, Inc.

 The federal complaint alleged eight causes of action against all defendants, seeking various relief including: 1) a judgment declaring that defendants are trespassing on the plaintiff's property; 2) an injunction against the defendants from trespassing on the plaintiff's property; 3) monetary damages for the defendants' alleged use and occupancy of plaintiff's property; 4) a judgment declaring that defendants are violating 33 U.S.C. § 403 (The Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act); 5) an injunction preventing defendants from operating a marina and requiring the defendants to remove the marina operation from the plaintiff's property; 6) a judgment declaring that defendants violated 33 U.S. § 1344 (The clean Water Act); 7) an injunction preventing the defendants from discharging fill into navigable waterways and requiring the defendants to remove the condition allegedly caused by the defendants' unlawful discharge; and 8) monetary damages for the defendants' alleged trespass on plaintiff's property.

  The Schmitts interposed an answer, denying the allegations in the complaint and setting forth fourteen affirmative defenses. The defendants Carl Mednica and Cave Diggers, Inc. appeared in the case and participated in the 1989 and 1990 preliminary injunction hearings. Their attorneys were relieved by order of this Court in December 1992. Thereafter, Carl Mednica appeared pro se at the trial on August 30, 1993, but has not participated in any subsequent proceedings.

 In March of 1993, the Court permitted the Schmitts to commence a third party action against the City of New York raising, among other things, the effect of the Gateway Conveyance on the issues in this case. The Schmitts seek a judgment declaring that they were lawfully leasing the property they occupy on broad Channel Island from the City and have a right to purchase that property from the City. They also request that the Court redefine the property included in the 1974 Gateway transfer from the City to the United States, which, by its terms, excluded all portions of the "Broad Channel Community." Further, the Schmitts seek a declaration that the property leased by the Schmitts is not included in the property transferred by the City to the Federal Government under the 1974 Gateway Conveyance.

 In response to the Schmitt third-party action, the City interposed an answer consisting of six affirmative defenses. Three counterclaims also were asserted, seeking: use and occupancy compensation from the Schmitts for the property they leased from 1945 to date; a judgment directing the Schmitts to restore the property and remedy any alleged damage caused by their occupancy and actions; and a judgment restoring the City to possession of the subject real property.

 In July 1996, the Court granted permission to the Schmitts to serve a supplemental third-party complaint against the City, pursuant to FRCP 15(d), based upon the enactment of a new statute by the New York State Legislature in 1995. The City answered this additional third-party cause of action and asserted another counterclaim for damages.

 B. The State Court Action

 In June 1990, after receiving thirty-day notices from the City attempting to terminate their tenancy as of June 30, 1990, the Schmitts commenced an action in Supreme Court Queens County in the nature of a declaratory judgment to void the thirty-day notices and to compel the City to sell the leased property to them pursuant to the authority in Ch. 756 of the laws of 1973 and the 1982 Resolution 151 of the Board of Estimate.

 In the Supreme Court Queens County action, the Schmitts obtained an injunction staying the termination of their tenancy and directing that the status quo be maintained. On the City's motion to dismiss, the State Supreme Court, (Hentel, J.), dismissed the Schmitts' clams that sought a Writ of Mandamus compelling the City to convey the leased property to the Schmitts. The Supreme Court converted the action into an Article 78 proceeding to determine if the City's actions were arbitrary and capricious. By stipulation, the Article 78 proceeding was removed to this Court and consolidated with the Federal actions.


 After a ten-day hearing which concluded on February 16, 1990, the Court rendered an oral decision, later issued in writing, enjoining the Schmitts from putting any craft into a sheltered water area adjacent to the Schmitt Marina, known as the Cove. United States v. Schmitt, 734 F. Supp. 1035 (E.D.N.Y. 1990). The parties, including counsel for defendant Mednica, agreed that all testimony at the preliminary injunction hearing "is deemed admitted in evidence at any future trial." Therefore, the Court will consider the evidence at the preliminary injunction hearing in its determination of the issues in this plenary trial.

 Dr. John T. Tanacredi, a research ecologist and Chief of the Division of Natural Resources and Environmental Compliance at the National Park Service at Gateway, testified that Jamaica Bay is operated as a wildlife preserve and a haven for a multitude of fish, animal and floral wildlife. He stated that the Schmitt Marina is located in the Big Egg Marsh which is a "protection zone." The Schmitt Marina consists of a land area, floats, floating docks and support structures, and has a capacity of approximately 250 boats. There were a number of floating docks and a walkway in the Cove. Dr. Tanacredi testified that the operation of the boats at the Schmitt Marina did and will contribute to polluting the environment in Jamaica Bay by the use of gasoline, sewage and waste products. He provided detailed testimony regarding the adverse impact on the ecology of the inter-tidal marshes and wildlife in the area of the Schmitt Marina as a result of the use and mooring of boats at the Schmitt Marina.

 Dr. Arthur LaPerriere, an ecologist employed as Chief of Harbor Supervision, concurred with Dr. Tanacredi's opinion that ten acres of natural tidal marshland had been destroyed at the Schmitt Marina since 1976. Also, he stated that, as a result of the Schmitt Marina, these marshland acres were covered with construction debris. The Marina also discharged toxic pollutants into the navigable waters of Jamaica Bay. Dr. LaPerriere testified that the operation of the Schmitt Marina had an "adverse impact on the wildlife" in Jamaica Bay.

 Michael P. Flynn, a lifetime resident of Broad Channel who worked at the Marina, testified about how the Schmitts placed more and more floating docks and boats in the Cove throughout the years. He described the two riprap walls that were built by the Schmitts. Flynn saw Adam using a bulldozer to push riprap to the northwest corner of the Marina. One of the riprap walls the Schmitts constructed was built in 1976-1977 in a semi-circle on an area partially surrounding the Cove known as the Hook. Adam talked to Flynn in 1977 or 1978 about extending the riprap wall. This wall was made of broken concrete, and its function "was to protect the marina from storms . . . (and) to prevent storm damage" (PI Tr. at 547). *fn3"

 Daniel Turbidy, another long time resident of Broad Channel, saw garbage trucks dumping industrial waste in the Schmitt Marina area, usually after 10:00 p.m. The trucks heaved this waste onto the green marshlands surrounding the Cove. Turbidy also saw bulldozers spread the garbage and place dirt and rocks over it.

 John Burke, an environmental conservation officer for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC") testified that on November 19, 1984 while on routine patrol, he saw that a new breakwall had been built. During a conversation with John Schmitt on the same day, John admitted that he was responsible for building the breakwall, and for the backfilling (PI Tr. at 1195-1196).

 John Schmitt testified that there was no written assignment of the lease of the Schmitt Marina from his father Adam to him. He is not the named tenant on the lease and is presently the manager of the Schmitt Marina with the permission of his father. John denied that he personally dumped on or filled tidal wetlands. Significantly, he testified that the Schmitt Marina had no known or definite boundaries, no site markers and only fixed, indefinite boundaries (PI Tr. at 1362).

 In its decision, this Court determined the following:

 (1) The evidence admitted at the hearing clearly demonstrated that the government has shown a likelihood of success on its claim that the Schmitts violated the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 403, with regard to the docks, floating docks and the walkway located in the Cove adjacent to the Schmitt Marina. In fact, in their post-hearing memorandum, the Schmitts stated that "there is no objection to that portion of plaintiff's motion that seeks to enjoin or restrain" the Schmitts from "'filling of tidal wetlands,'" although they deny that they have previously done so. (Schmitts' Post-Hearing memorandum at p.1).

 (2) The government demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits that the Schmitts violated the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344, in that they polluted navigable waters of the United States.

  (3) Irreparable harm is presumed where the Government seeks to enforce a statutory violation by way of a preliminary injunction expressly authorized by that statute. Further, the Court found that the Government proved irreparable harm with regard to the detrimental effect of the operation of the Schmitt Marina on the diverse ecology in the Cove and the damage caused to the marshlands and waters as a result of the construction of the riprap wall. The Court stated that "Clearly money damages cannot compensate the citizens of the United States for the loss of vegetation and marshland in the Schmitt Cove." Id. at 1054.

 4) "The Government cannot be estopped from prosecuting its Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act and Clean Water Act claims" Id. at 1056; the doctrine of latches is unavailable to the defendants as a defense Id. at 1057; and the Schmitts failed to establish a defense of selective enforcement Id. At 1057.

 Based upon these finding and conclusions, the Court issued the following preliminary injunction:


(1) the defendants John Schmitt, Adam Schmitt d/b/a Channel Marine Suzucki and Schmitt's Marina, and Adam Schmitt d/b/a Adams Fishing Station are hereby preliminarily enjoined from placing or allowing th docking or storage of boats in the Schmitt Cove (see Plaintiff's Exhibit 3) until further Order of this Court; and


(2) the defendants John Schmitt, Adam Schmitt d/b/a Channel Marine Suzucki and Schmitt's Marina, and Adam Schmitt d/b/a Adams fishing Station are hereby preliminarily enjoined from any further expansion of the Schmitt Marina into the Schmitt Cove or any portion of Jamaica Bay until further Order of this Court.

 Following the issuance of the preliminary injunction, the parties modified the terms of the preliminary injunction, on consent, to permit the Schmitts to use one single dock in the Cove below the mean water parallel to the mapped 96th Street in a north-south direction for docking and boat storage. This dock is referred to in this opinion as "Dock A." Also permitted was a second smaller float approximately 20 feet in length and 10 feet in width, a few feet seaward of and parallel to Dock A. The parties further modified the preliminary injunction in a stipulation on the record on April 29, 1994. (See Tr. 1838-1843, subject to certain concerns by the City regarding environmental problems; see also problems in connection with this stipulation at Tr. 1860-1901).


 This opinion and order includes the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). See Rosen v. Siegel, 106 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 1997); Colonial Exchange Ltd. Partnership v. Continental Casualty Co., 923 F.2d 257 (2d Cir. 1991). During this discussion, the Court will make findings of fact, which will be supplemented by additional findings later in the opinion.

 A. The Schmitts' Case

 The Schmitts offered the testimony of two expert witnesses seeking to establish that any docks placed in the Cove prior to 1968, could remain without a written permit. One expert witness, James Haggerty, Chief of the Eastern Permit Section of the Army Corps of Engineers, testified by deposition with regard to "nationwide permits." A Nationwide Permit is a general permit issued from headquarters in Washington, authorizing "many types of minor activities without going through a full blown permit process." There is another type of permit called a "grandfather" permit which provides that no permit is required for any completed structure built in navigable waters prior to December 18, 1968. Thus, a dock placed in navigable waters prior to December 18, 1968 would need no permit from the Corps of Engineers.

 The second witness, James M. Mansky is an expert in ecology, and was formerly Chief of Compliance Section of the New York District of the Corps of Engineers. Mansky also discussed the issue of Nationwide permits. He testified that a Nationwide Three Permit authorizes the repair and rehabilitation, without a written permit, of a structure that was constructed and placed in the water prior to December 18, 1968.


THE COURT: If there are docks into the water before 1968, you say they could stay there without a permit?


THE WITNESS: That's correct.

 (Tr. at 96).

 Mansky testified that he visited the Schmitt Marina on June 5, 1993 and again on August 29, 1993. In Mansky's opinion, three portions of the Schmitt Marina qualify for a Nationwide Three Permit: (1) the bulkhead close to the house, (2) the fill behind the bulkhead, and (3) the long dock with slips for boats parallel to the shore adjacent to the bulkhead, in the Cove. This permit would also cover a same size, same place replacement dock and the use of the dock to tie up boats. However, Mansky also stated that the other docks perpendicular to the main dock or walkway would not qualify for the Nationwide Three Permit.

 According to Mansky, at the time of his visits to the scene, "the marsh and the site animals within the marsh were surviving and functioning within the normal condition and it did not appear that there was anything that the marina was causing as a disturbance." The Court does not credit this testimony. The overwhelming evidence is to be the contrary.

 During his visit, and after reviewing aerial photographs, Mansky observed "filing in" that took place in the Hook around the Cove over a two acre area. Mansky testified that he saw "fill in the Hook area" extending from the south and curving around the Cove shoreline. He stated that the filing of the Hook could have been done by dump trucks. Of importance, he observed asphalt in th fill area around the Cove and a substantial change in the vegetation along the shoreline. In sum, Mansky testified that there was significant filing in the Hook with two acres of fill which would be a violation of the law. (Tr. at 287-288, 309).

 Mansky also testified that the Corps of Engineers had jurisdiction tot he mean high water line and could not be deprived of jurisdiction because the area was filled in. In addition, he bolstered the Government's contention that the Big Egg Marsh is vital to national wildlife abounding in Jamaica Bay:


Q Now, Big Egg Marsh isn't it true that the marsh play a role in the food chain production of the estuary, Jamaica Bay?


A Yes.


Q Isn't it fair to say that the wetlands that were all around the marina in 1967 as clear from that photograph, they also played a part in food chain production, didn't they?


A Yes, they did.


Q And what about general habitat and nesting, spawning, rearing and nesting sites for aquatic or land species? Isn't it true that small fish tend to hid in the grasses, in the Spartina at the high tides to prevent them from being eaten by the larger fish?


A Yes, they do.


Q Isn't it true that birds are generally shy, and if there is an area that they can nest that is protected by grasses, high grasses, that the may use it for spawning and nesting; is that true?


A Fish spawn and birds nest.


. . .


Q And they also provide resting sites for aquatic and land species? Don't these --


A Yes, they do.


. .


Q And isn't it true that Jamaica Bay is place where all species of birds stop by on their way in the fall and in the spring? It is a stop over area?


A It is a stop over area.


Q Isn't it true that those grasses as they existed in Exhibit 39, that 1967 beach erosion photograph, isn't it true that those grasses around the marina, isn't it true that they could have easily provided resign sits for various birds and stop over points for various birds?


A Yes.


Q You would expect birds to the there?


A They could be there.


Q They are not now because it has been buried with concrete?


A They could be off shore where the wetlands were before, but you would not tend to find them on top of the fill.


. . .


Q And tomorrow it is supposed to rain, heavy rain tomorrow. If that piece of asphalt is sitting down in that cove, isn't it true a little may trickle off and leach down into the area?


A It's true.


. . .


Q So you don't build normal streets through marsh land if you want to protect it for the animal life, isn't that true?


A. You would not normally put asphalt on top of a street with marsh land.


. . .


Q Okay.


Is it fair to say that it was a wetland set aside for study of aquatic environment or as sanctuaries or refuges, isn't that exactly what Big Egg Marsh is?


A As depicted on this map, yes.

  (Tr. at 246-253) (emphasis supplied).

  Significantly, Mansky testified that the marsh islands of Jamaica Bay are "unique":


Q Isn't it fair to say that the marshes -- the marsh islands of Jamaica Bay, which are part of the wildlife refuge, isn't it fair to say that they are unique in terms of their lack of development inside of the borders of New York City?


A Yes.


Q Isn't it fair to say they are scarce in New York City this kind of wetland and bird habitat?


A Yes.

  (Tr. at 256-257).

  Further, Mansky testified, after some evasion, that the boats in the Schmitt Marina did do some damage to the wetlands. (Tr. at 259).

  Mansky testified in June and August 1993. On August 3, 1995, Mansky was recalled by the Schmitts. In his initial testimony, he was of the opinion that Dock A and a bulkhead were authorized under a Nationwide Three Permit. In his 1995 testimony, Mansky asserted that the Schmitts also were entitled to Nationwide Two Permit under the provisions of 33 CFR 330.6(2). This provision, in effect since 1988, authorized structures constructed in artificial canals in residential areas where the connection of the canal to navigable waters had been previously authorized. Thus, according to Mansky the Schmitts can place and maintain any structure they want in an artificial canal. In Mansky's opinion, the Schmitts are entitled to a Nationwide Two Permit because there the Cove is an artificial canal in the Schmitt Marina area.

  Mansky also testified, after reviewing the applicable maps an aerial photographs, that he concluded that the Cove was created between 1924 and 1938. Also, the water depths around Broad Channel vary from 2 feet to 11 feet, while the depth of water in the Cove is 16 feet. He then deducted that the Cove was created by dredging the area and was a man made artificial canal. According to Mansky, nature could not have made a 16 foot deep cove surrounded by shallower water. Mansky's conclusion is that the Cove is an artificial canal and the structures within the Cove are authorized by a Nationwide Two Permit, as long as the structures did not have a significant impact on navigation. As such, according to Mansky, the Schmitts do not need written authorization from the Army Corps of Engineers to maintain the docks in the Cove. He also stated that the docks in the Cove do not "appear" to impede navigation, although he admitted that a dock in the Cove would be an obstacle to navigation. However, he later reversed himself and contended that the Schmitt Marina docks had no effect on navigation.

  Notwithstanding Mansky's view that the Cove was a "canal," he conceded that the Cove area is always reached by the sea and was formerly marshland. He also stated that a Nationwide Two Permit refers to a "residential development." In an 1896 map, the Big Egg Marsh was not a residential neighborhood (Pl. Exs. 48 and 49). In a 1923 sketch, it is apparent that the Cove was in the area of Big Egg Marsh that was not developed. In 1988, hundreds of boats were stored on the land near the Cove, which is a commercial use (Def. Ex. B-151). With regard to this claim that the Cove was a canal, John Schmitt brought in hundreds of documents on Board Channel and stated that he could not produce a single map that referred to the Cove as a canal. The Court finds that the Cove is not in a "residential development", is used in a commercial enterprise, and thus would not be subject to a Nationwide Two Permit.

  Thomas C. Monaghan is an attorney who resides and has his office in Broad Channel, a mile north of the Schmitt Marina. He grew up in Broad Channel. The Court finds that Monaghan exhibited a definite bias and hostility against the City of New York. Monaghan testified that after 1975, no written leases were issued by the City. From that time, the City kept the tenant's name and leasehold on a computer, under block and lot numbers, with monthly bills issued by computer. He testified concerning the sale of the land in Broad Channel by the City to the tenants, commencing in 1981. Starting in the 1970s, one Ed Smith was in charge of the leases on Broad Channel. Survey with regard to the sale of the property on Broad Channel were done by Albert A. Bianco, although many closings were consummated without surveys. The descriptions in the deeds were based on the streets in Broad Channel and not on metes and bounds. Some persons were permitted to buy properties in addition to their leased premises. The original sales were only for residential property. However, starting in 1984 or 1985, sales of non-residential parcels commenced.

  Monaghan is familiar with the Schmitt property and the surrounding areas. He stated that the Pasienza property, formerly known as John's Fishing Station, is immediately adjacent to the Schmitt property. Both lessees were engaged in operating a marina and fishing station. The Schmitts occupied the Cove (he referred to that location as the cul-de-sac) with moorings where boats were docked. Both marinas were on land at the end of 19th Road; John's Fishing Station on the north side and the Schmitt Marina on the south side. John's Fishing Station also used the canal north of 19th Road to store rowboats.

  Monaghan testified that the City sold properties to certain tenants which were fishing stations and marinas, but the City declined to sell to the Schmitts. Monaghan believed that the Schmitts were the only Broad Channel residents not given this opportunity by the City to by their leased property.

  According to Monaghan, the entire Broad Channel area, comprising the entire boot including Big Egg Marsh and the Cove, is excluded from the Gateway Conveyance. (See markings on Def. Ex. B-19). The Court does not credit this unreliable lay opinion testimony and finds that the portion of Broad Channel excluded from the Gateway conveyance does not include the Big Egg Marsh and the Cove.

  With regard to the fill added to the Hook, Monaghan testified, as follows:


Q Didn't there come a time there was some kind of alteration in the area we call the Hook? Did you ever see that change?


A Yes.


Q And what happened to it?


A It was built up.


Q How did it change?


A There was fill, there was land where marsh used to be.


Q Did you have any understanding of how that fill arrived on to the Hook?


A I never actually saw any trucks actually dumping. But I know that obviously they did.

  (Tr. at 806-807).

  Interestingly, Monaghan testified that almost all the tenants on Broad Channel encroached on City-held property. Indeed, a substantial number encroached on more than 100 percent of the land they leased and a few encroached on 200 to 1200 percent of the land they leased from the City. Monaghan defined the term encroachment to mean that tenant's "explained their property as far as they could go without offending an adjoining property owner."

  The Court was not impressed with the testimony of Monaghan. He is clearly overly anxious to assist the Schmitts and his testimony as to the various boundary lines appears tailored to follow the "Fruchtman line," explained below, that the Cove and Hook are excluded from the Gateway conveyance.

   Irwin Fruchtman was an important witness for the Schmitts. As Chief Engineer of the City Planning Commission he prepared the map for the Gateway Conveyance. Fruchtman worked with the mapping division and other City agencies to draw the lines for the Gateway conveyance. The final map, dated January 11, 1974, contains his signature.

  Fruchtman testified that the Broad Channel Community was excluded from the Gateway conveyance. Also excluded were three of the four proposed City parks, that were never adopted. According to Fruchtman, the Big Egg Marsh also was excluded (See Def. Ex. B-20). Fruchtman also testified that the Broad Channel Community "is bounded by three of [the] four proposed parks." The words "bounded by" are important in the determination of some of the disputed issues in this case.

  Also material to the question of the Gateway Broad Channel exclusion is the shading on the conveyance map, Def. Ex. B-19. The shaded areas were not to be conveyed to Gateway. Fruchtman conceded that none of the so-called park areas are shaded on the map. This important map, Def. Ex. B-19, showing the shaded portion of the Broad Channel not to be conveyed to the Federal Government for Gateway is in the Appendix at Figure 2. The Court finds that the Big Egg Marsh, including the Cove and the Hook around the Cove, were included in the Gateway conveyance. Accordingly, the Court finds that title to those lands, water and lands under water is, since 1974, in the Gateway National Park.

  Adam Schmitt has lived in Broad Channel since 1936, when his parents acquired a house and land. In October 1944 his family purchased a houseboat on land at the foot of 20th Road that the Schmitt family occupied (see Bill Sale, Def. Ex. B-33). His parents, Adam and Adele, are deceased. Adam took over the marina in 1965, and then lived there with his five children. Adam has a second residence on Broad Channel. In 1982 he moved into the house on the adjacent John's Fishing Station.

  Adam described Schmitt's Marina as it was in 1944. At that time there was a small sand road "more or less" going to the marina and "there wasn't much land being used at the time." (Tr. at 713). Adam's initial description of the growth of the Schmitt Marina reveals how, over the years, the Marina kept expanding:


THE WITNESS: There was a small road going to the marina and there wasn't much land being used at the time. And over the years my father kept adding to it. There were many leases that he added here, added there, added here, added there. And it kept going.


Then in 1968 I bought what was called -- it was called John's Fishing Station. I bought it from Dan Pasienza.


So, in effect in 1968 the marina encompassed from the 19th Road canal south almost over the day camp.


. . .


And including the cove, the water in the cove. There was one lease that specifically mentioned 40,000 square feet of water.

  (Tr. at 713-714) (emphasis supplied).

  In 1944, there was a small dock in the water parallel to the land. (See Def. Exs. W, X and Y). This small dock remained in approximately the same location, to the present date. Also, the bulkhead near the dock is, except for repairs, substantially the same sine 1944. The bulkhead runs in a north/south direction for approximately 200 feet in length.

  When Adam took over the marina from his parents in 1965, the bill of sale from Adele dated July 5, 1965 (Def. Ex. B-39) described the "business" being sold as "located at the foot of West 20th Road," the same location as in the City leases. The bill of sale described the nature of the business "as a fishing station and boat storage yards." There is no mention of a "marina" in the bill of sale.

  Adam testified that the lease from the City included the entire Cove and the land south to the Board Channel Day Camp. Using a copy of the aerial photograph taken on August 8, 1984 (Pl. Ex. 3) and a marker, Adam drew an orange line showing his view of the boundary of the Schmitt Marina. (Def. Ex. B-40). (This exhibit is designated as Figure 3 in the appendix). In delineating his view of the borders of the Schmitt Marina, Adam includes the Cove and the water north of the Cove, but carefully excludes the Hook around the Cove. He also includes a large portion of the land east of the Cove.

  In 1968 Adam expanded his holdings by purchasing John's Fishing Station, located adjacent to and north of the marina. Adam drew a yellow line on the map show his view of the location of the John's Fishing Station property (Def. Ex. B-42). The Court notes that Adam's view of the location of John's Fishing Station portrays a much smaller piece of land due north of the Schmitt Marina with little water surrounding it. (This exhibit is designated Figure 4 in the Appendix).

  According to Adam, dumping of fill took place at John's Fishing Station in 1968 and 1969. The fill consisted mostly of concrete from the bridge being rebuilt on the Cross Bay Boulevard, with sand piled on top of the concrete. Adam did not know who dumped this fill on the John's Fishing Station property. The purpose of this fill was to "stabilize the land and raise it above the moon tides." (Tr. at 989). In 1982 Adam retired and turned over the marina to his son John. Adam was also the owner of Channel Marine Sales, which he apparently operated at and in conjunction with the marina. In 1988 Adam purchased his residential property from the City (Def. Ex. B-45).

  Adam stated that the Hook was not part of the Schmitt Marina. He did not know who owned or leased the Hook property. Adam contends that the Schmitt Marina lease includes the water in the Cove, but not the land around the Cove known as the Hook. Adam denied that he or any member of his family "put the fill on that portion of the area known as the hook." (Tr. at 1005). This raises one of the important issues in this case, namely, who was responsible for filling in the marsh land around the Cove, which fill, dumped on top of the green marshland, created the riprap brown-appearing Hook?

  Adam testified that Carl Mednica is a contractor and a customer who kept a boat in his marina. Adam first met Mednica in 1973 when he stored his boat at the marina. Curiously, Adam did not charge Mednica for storing his boat. He explained that the boat "never went in the water so I never charged him," and "we got to be friendly." (Tr. at 1014). Asked who was responsible of filling the Hook, and he saw Mednica with a bulldozer. He also saw Edward Smith, the City Broad Channel land manager "talking to the different truck drivers, who were dumping the fill" in "the whole area of the hook." (Tr. at 1006).

  During his testimony, Adam described the filling in of the Hook:


Q Now, leaving aside rip-rap because we will get to that, what you meant rip-rap then, but your testimony was that you didn't own the Hook; is that correct?


A Yes.


Q And that little parcel of land at the end of the Hook is the furthest projection of the Hook?


A The fill was -- Hook was filled in land. It was marsh. It was a continuation of marsh around the cove.


Q What year are you talking about that the Hook was marsh?


A Filled in in 1973, 1974.


Q Prior to 1973, 1974, the Hook was marsh land?


A Yes.


Q And the tides occasionally reached over the marsh?


A Yes

  (Tr. at 1023-1024).

  Adam explained that he did not want to build up the Hook to protect the boats in the Cove because th winds and bad weather come from the northwest and building up the Hook, which is in the south, would not make any difference. Adam denied that he was associated with Mednica in any manner with regard to filling in the Hook, nor was it done on his behalf. In fact, Adam testified that he tried to block the dump trucks from coming on his land. He did permit dumping on his property but not on the Hook. He also used Mednica's bulldozer in "knocking the weeds down." Also, Mednica stored equipment on the Schmitt Marina, including two olivers, a dump truck, a flatbed trailer with equipment, a bulldozer in pieces, and several fuel tanks. Adam also conceded that, at one time, he worked for Mednica, "pushed snow for him with a bulldozer;" knew how to operate Mednica's bulldozer and this bulldozer was "sitting" on his property, in pieces.

  Adam conceded that he knew Mednica was dumping fill around the Hook:


Q Did you ever say to Midnica (sic) that you would like to have fill put in around that Hook to close in the area to prevent storm damage? Did you ever say something like that to Midnica (sic)?


A No.


Q Is there any reason why Midnica (sic) would believe that you wanted him to do that?


A Not that I know of.


Q He did it though, didn't he, Midnica?


A Yes.


Q You knew he was doing it at that time?


A Yes.


Q And you didn't object to it, right?


A By that time I had objected.

  (Tr. at 1094).

  Adam also admitted that someone visited him from the federal government and told him that he was filing in federal land. Also, his testimony on the erosion on the Hook and the filing of the area by way of a riprap wall in 1976 and the protection of the boats in the Cove is enlightening:


Q . . . Isn't it true that someone from Floyd Bennett Field came to visit you and told you that part of your marina is on --


A At one point they did, yes, that's correct.


. . . .


Q Is it correct that there had been erosion in that end of the Hook, and that erosion had made the cove more vulnerable to wave action from the bay?


A Somewhat.


. . . .


Q So this person is right again, that building a rip-rap wall in the right place would have prevented erosion and protected the boats in the marina; isn't that true?


A Yes. . ..

  (Tr. at 1144, 1146, 1148-1149).

  On October 5, 1976, the Corps of Engineers sent a "cease and desist" letter to Ernestine Schmitt, Adam's wife, regarding the filing of material "upon the wetlands adjacent to your property" (Pl. Ex. 18). This letter referred to the placement of fill material upon the wetlands "adjacent to your property," and that such fill was detrimental to the surrounding environment. The letter requested her to remove all the fill material, and warned that failure to comply would result in forwarding the case to the United States Attorney for appropriate action.

  The Court finds that the Schmitts were warned about the very conditions at issue in this case, as far back as October 5, 1976, and chose to ignore all the warnings. Not only did they do nothing to rectify these conditions, but they exacerbated the situation by continuing to fill in the Hook area around the Cove and by increasing the docking facilities in the Cove.

  At this point in the trial, the Government and the City stated their contentions as to the land and water claimed by them to be part of the Gateway acquisition and thus under the control of the United States.


THE COURT: Is it the Government's contention that this area here, marked was not conveyed?




THE COURT: And you say the area including the cove was? (Was conveyed to Gateway).




THE COURT: And was there any area in the ground part conveyed?


MR. CLEARY: The marshes.


THE COURT: But where Schmitt's Marina is?


MR. CLEARY: The line runs right along the shore.


THE COURT: I am getting to the heart of the case now.


. . . .


Your contention is it runs along the shore here?


MR. CLEARY: Yes, and includes the cove and includes the marsh land.


. . . .


MR. SHAW: It is the City's contention as well, but I would like to define it to the extent that it runs along the shoreline, except to the extent that the shoreline has been changed by the dumping and filling in that area.

  (Tr. at 1335-1336).

  Edward Weinstein is an architect and urban planner. He was formerly employed with the Corps of Engineers for four months and for 17 years with the City Department of Ports and Terminals. Weinstein is familiar with the City, State and Federal regulations involving the areas and issues in this case. Weinstein was retained by the Schmitt Marina in June 1991 to apply for a permit for certain floating docks and bulkheads at the marina. He viewed the marina at that time and described it as five acres of upland and five acres under water. The land under water includes the Cove containing floating docks. There is one main dock approximately 250 feet in length running parallel to the shoreline (Dock A) and several other floating docks and finger piers.

  Shown the August 8, 1984 aerial map (Pl. Ex. 3), he pointed out Dock A, the dock closest to and parallel to the shore. After having reviewed the photographs taken over a period of fifty years, Weinstein testified that "Dock A existed in just about every photograph I have seen of this property going back to the late 1940s."

  Weinstein testified that Dock A would be entitled to a Nationwide Three Permit because it was a structure existing prior to December 18, 1968, providing there was no interference with navigation. He was also of the opinion that the bulkhead alongside Dock A would be entitled to a Nationwide Three Permit since it has been in continuous existence since the 1950s. This Nationwide Permit would authorize the maintenance, repair, renovation and rehabilitation of the structures. The Court notes that it could not find or observe the bulkhead referred to by Weinstein on any of the aerial photographs, although a snapshot taken in 1966 reveals that the Schmitts contend is the bulkhead (Def. Ex. B-76). Weinstein further testified that a Nationwide Twenty-Eight Permit authorizes the reconfiguration of marinas, and that the Schmitt Marina had both such permits. Under these permits the Schmitts "would have the right to fix the dock and bulkhead so long as it existed at that location is substance prior to that December 18, 1968 date."

  In addition, Weinstein testified that all the docks in the Cove as shown in the August 8, 1984 aerial photo (Pl. Ex. 3) "can continue to exist and can continue to be maintained and repaired because they are authorized under the Nationwide Permit." (Tr. at 1374). Weinstein based this opinion on the fact that in the 1950s as shown in Def. Ex. W, the entire Cove was filled with small boats at moorings. He stated that "a mooring and a dock are interchangeable and serve the same purpose. And, therefore I feel the reconfiguration from a mooring to a floating dock is allowed in accordance with Nationwide Permit 28. . . . And therefore the change from having approximately 200 boats at moorings, to approximately the same number of floating docks is a reconfiguration permitted under Nationwide Permit 28." (Tr. at 1374-1375).

  Also, Weinstein stated that the "work" in the Cove would have been permitted "in accordance with the after-the-fact procedures of the Army Corps of Engineers." He explained that an "after-the-fact" is a permit authorizing work which is begun or completed without an individual permit, where the work can be presumed to have been allowed under the Nationwide Permit. Weinstein concluded that because the activities in the Cove, including the placement of the floating docks, as well as the repair and rehabilitation of the bulkheads and shoreline structures were permitted in accordance with Nationwide Three and Twenty-Eight Permits, therefore, they would have been approved with an after-the-fact permit.

  Weinstein also concluded that the construction of the marina and the reconfiguration of the floating docks in the Cove "has absolutely no interference with navigation" and would be environmentally less obtrusive. He stated that this area of Jamaica Bay is not significant to navigation, in that it is an area "used exclusively for recreational boating and not for interstate or foreign commerce." However, Weinstein conceded that a pier could be an obstruction to navigation. The Court finds that a dock could also be an obstruction to navigation.

  Weinstein testified that in June 1991, the Schmitts made application to the Corps of Engineers for a permit for the docks and bulkheads and "kept getting a run around." It took a year for them to obtain an application number, which was "extraordinarily unusual." Finally, he was told that AUSA Clearly had the file and so the application could not be processed.

  Touching on a critical subject, after being shown Def. Ex. B-27, Weinstein stated that the Big Egg Marsh was within the Broad Channel Community and was not part of Gateway National Park. As stated throughout this decision, the Court rejects this unsupported opinion and finds that the Big Egg Marsh is part of the Gateway National Park.

  The Court observes that Dock A was of different lengths over the course of the years. For example, in the aerial photograph taken on April 11, 1969 (Pl. Ex. 24) Dock A was about 50 feet in length (Tr. at 1464), while on May 3, 1969, there were a number of floating docks totaling over 200 feet (Def. Ex. 78). Also, the Court finds that 33 CFR 330, Appendix A limits the scope of Nationwide Twenty-Eight Permit, as follows:


Modifications of existing marinas. Reconfigurations of existing docking facilities within an authorized marina area. No dredging, additional slips or dock spaces, or expansion of any kind within the waters of the United States are authorized by this Nationwide Permit.

  Reviewing the aerial map of Broad Channel in 1969 (Pl. Ex. 24) and in August 1984 (Pl. Ex. 3), Weinstein declined to concede the obvious fact that there were additional slips or docks added to the marina during that period of time. His evasive conduct did not enhance his credibility. The Court finds that the Schmitts did add additional slips and dock spaces to the existing docking facilities in violation of 33 CFR 330. See Appendix A.

  The credibility of Weinstein was also undermined by his refusal to admit the obvious, namely, that the unshaded portions of Broad Channel on the various maps, demonstrates that the Big Egg Marsh portion of Broad Channel was included in the Gateway Conveyance. (Tr. at 1481-1484).

  Also, during Weinstein's testimony evidence was adduced that the Schmitts substantially increased the number of slips in the Cove between 1984 and 1988. In Pl. Ex. 3, the August 8, 1984 aerial photograph, there were approximately 130 boat slips in the Cove. In the aerial photograph taken on March 17, 1988 (Pl. Ex. 46) there were 184 boat slips in the Cove, an increase of 54 boat slips.

  Frank Papay had been until September 1986 the Director of Parkland and Planning for the Department of Parks of the City of New York. He is familiar with the conveyance to the Federal Government for Gateway, since most of the land conveyed was parklands. He is also familiar with the "neighborhood" of Broad Channel. Papay testified that Broad Channel was excluded form the Gateway conveyance because it was the City's policy "not to disrupt or dislocate people . . . the intent of Gateway was to convey basically wetlands, beaches and other parkland. And it was not the intent of the City to dispose of residential areas." (Tr. at 1564). Although offered by the Schmitts this testimony supports the contention that the marshland which constitutes the Big Egg Marsh and the Cove were conveyed to the Federal Government for Gateway.

  Also, Papay testified that it was the intent of Congress and the mandate of the Parks Department to protect the marshes of Jamaica Bay for migratory birds. He also stated that the residential area of Broad Channel ended where the Big Egg Marsh began; that the Big Egg Marsh was an undisturbed bird habitat "since time immemorial;" and that it would be consistent with his understanding of the reasoning of the Gateway At that the Big Egg Marsh be included in Gateway. (Tr. at 1650). On cross-examination by the Assistant Corporation Counsel, despite the vacillation by Papay, it became clear that Big Egg Marsh was conveyed to the Federal Government and was included in Gateway:


Q Isn't it true, sir, that a considerable portion of the land within that boot shaped unhatched area was in fact conveyed to the federal government?


A Yes.


Q Including most of Big Egg Marsh?


A Yes.

  (Tr. at 1653).

  Steven Goverman is an Assistant Regional Attorney of Region II of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC"). He was first involved with Schmitt's Marina in April 1992 in a proceeding by DEC against John Schmitt. In that proceeding by DEC John Schmitt did not attend a hearing and an order was issued by the Commissioner of DEC, "which required the payment of a fine of $ 22,00 and the performance of certain remediation at the Schmitt Marina site." In addition, "there was a finding by the administrative law judge, confirmed by the Commissioner, that the marina had been the subject of filling activities in a 100 by 100 foot area, and a bulkhead had been placed further out . . .." (Tr. at 1546).

  Goverman testified at length as to documents and certain DEC proceedings against Cave Diggers, Inc. and Mednica, including a consent order. Action against these two parties was not enforced because Cave Diggers went into bankruptcy and Mednica was not "available." In one of the agreements Cave Diggers and Mednica agreed to remove fill within 18 months to below mean high water. There was no reference to the Schmitts in these documents and no evidence that they were actively involved. However, Goverman testified that the Schmitts may be involved in that the violation occurred on property that was under their control.

  Goverman reviewed certain documents pertaining to a violation at the Schmitt Marina in November 1984 (see Def. Ex. B-104). The DEC Certificate of Disposition dated November 19, 1984 describes the offense as: "Placing fill which consists of wood, cement and brick on a tidal wetland and constructing a retainer wall in a navigable body of water." In a tidal wetland map annexed to the documents it is noted "fill, approximately ten yards by ten yards . . . retaining wall 80 feet." The owner of the property is listed as John Schmitt, "leased from the City." The photographs annexed show a bulldozer and a crane. These demonstrate two discrete violations, namely, the fill and constructing a retaining wall in a navigable body of water.

  Also offered in evidence was Def. Ex. B-107, which is a DEC form dated January 22, 1985 alleging the following violations: "Placement of fill consisting of dirt, wood, cement rubble, and brick into navigable waters and tidal wetlands, including a large area of intertidal and high marsh. Construction of a retaining wall in navigable waters and tidal wetlands. All activities done without the required D.E.C. permits." This violation apparently was placed after a personal visit by a DEC staff member. The DEC person also stated in the report that there was a "massive filling of one of the largest and best salt marshes in New York City." A notice of hearing for November 15, 1985 (Def. Ex. B-108) stated the violation at issue as follows:


Inspections of Respondent's premises made by employee of the Department disclosed that Respondent has placed or caused to be placed, fill, consisting of wood and soil, rubble and brick into hangable (sic) waters and tidal wetlands, and constructing a retaining wall in navigable wetlands and tidal wetlands of Jamaica Bay around Broad Channel and its adjacent areas immediately adjacent to its premises at 64 West 20th Street, a navigable body of water and mapped tidal wetland, in violation of ECL §§ 15-0505 and 25-0401 and 6 NYCRR. Parts 608 and 661 and without obtaining the required permits from the Department.

  On April 14, 1998 another violation complaint was filed against Schmitt's Marina (Def. Ex. B-117). The charge directed "removal of vegetation, storage of boats." The complaint further states that: "This is an ongoing violation site at which vegetation has been removed, tidal wetland filled, and solid waste disposed. (Note unresolved enforcement case on file for years)." On November 15, 1988 another notice of violation was filed against John M. Schmitt with regard to tidal wetlands. (Def. Ex. B-123). The charges was "placement of fill and grading such fill in the adjacent area to a tidal wetland without a required permit."

  An administrative hearing was held on the DEC violations on July 6, 1989 before Administrative Law Judge Susan J. DuBois. The Schmitts declined to attend the hearing after being notified by certified mail, and were in default. The Schmitts never moved to vacate their default or to reopen the hearing. In her Hearing Report dated October 11, 1990 (Def. Ex. B-128), Judge DuBois made numerous detailed findings including rock, concrete and dirt fill placed in tidal wetland areas containing marsh grass; the construction of additional docks by July 19, 1998; additional docks constructed by August 23, 1988; and other violations. A copy of the report is found in the appendix at Figure 5. Among the recommendations of Judge DuBois was to require the Schmitts to remove the bulkhead and fill and restore the wetland. On October 11, 1990 an order was entered by the Commissioner of the DEC approving the recommendation of Judge DuBois (Def. Ex. B-128A).

  Goverman reviewed the 1974 and 1984 aerial photographs and noted the differences in the area of the Schmitt Marina. These differences included "possibly five or more docks that were not in existence in 1974;" a substantial fill in area directly behind the dock causing it to be unvegetated; the fill projected "fairly far out into the cove;" and very substantial an extensive "amount of filling in the area designated intertidal marsh along the hook of the cove." Goverman testified that presently John Schmitt is not in compliance with the DEC orders; no remedial work has been done; and the civil penalty of $ 22,000 has not been paid. According to Goverman, "this fill by the Schmitts is a seven acre fill, and in terms of gross area it does represent the largest filling violation within the five boroughs of the City of New York."

  While the initial DEC investigations of the filling revolved around Mednica, there was evidence of involvement by the Schmitts. Goverman convincingly explained the reasons for his opinion "that the Schmitts were in part responsible for the fill, particularly around the hook area"


What makes this (the fill dumping) unusual here is it takes a long linear form which is labor intensive and spread over a very discreet area, and it is a very irregular sort of fill. And what that says to me is that it was done not for disposal purposes let's say, but for a construction purpose.


There is some cost and effort and equipment used that would be associated in creating a fill of this nature, meaning it is not the haphazard fill one would expect for fewer disposal purposes, but, rather, for construction purposes.


. . .


Q If the person was in the construction business and trying to dispose of fill -- are you saying there would be no use to that person?


A In terms of equipment cost and time, it would make no use for the intended use, no. In terms of actual earth moving and grading and any other activities that might be associated -- the scale of the fill would be out of proportion to that use.


THE COURT: So, you are saying that there is no use to the fill?


THE WITNESS: The only use that would make sense, your Honor, is what Mr. Midnica (sic) was describing, and essentially access and the beginnings of a wall to shelter the marina. That would be appropriate to the scale of this kind of fill.

  (Tr. at 2366, 2370-2371) (emphasis supplied).

  The Court has compared the various aerial photographs and by doing so, the evolution and the growth of the Schmitt Marina is readily apparent. The aerial photographs taken on April 27, 1946 (Def. Ex. 161) and April 28, 1949 (Def. Ex. B-162) show no docks in the cove. By contrast, the aerial photograph taken on April 19, 1954 (Def. Ex. B-164) shows the dock we now refer to as Dock A. Apparently, this is the first photograph which shows the presence of Dock A. By June 24, 1959 Dock A is busily used and there are boats and, perhaps moorings for the boats in the cove. (See Def. Ex. B-169). In Def. Ex. B-171, an aerial photograph taken on May 6, 1960, only Dock A is a permanent visible dock -- the boats in the cove appear to be attached to moorings in an irregular fashion, leading the Court to find that these moorings are not permanent structures entitled to a Nationwide Permit. Also, comparing a November 20, 1966 photo (Pl. Ex. 23) with a March 17, 1988 photo (Def. Ex. B-151) one can see the substantial increase of docks and slips in the Cove. In 1966 there was one long dock parallel to the shore (Dock A), while in 1988 there are ten docks in various lengths in the Cove.

  Portions of the deposition of Carl Mednica taken on October 14, 1993 were read into the record. Mednica testified that he purchased and docked boats at Adam's Fishing Station starting in 1973. He did not pay Adam a fee because they were very good friends. Mednica kept a big bulldozer and a "dynahoe" at the marina. He had an understanding with Adam so that he could use both machines. Mednica testified that Adam needed concrete in the form of broken sidewalk to stabilize the grounds. The broken concrete came from broken sidewalks and was dumped into containers. Mednica advised Adam how to spread the concrete over the land. Adam used Mednica's bulldozer with his permission to pulverize the concrete. The following deposition testimony by Mednica is material on the issue of who placed the fill in the area of the Hook:


Question: Did Adam ever tell you why he wanted this concrete put on this land, what purpose he had? Did he ever tell you anything?


. . .


MR. CLEARY: Answer: The purpose of the, you know, of the particular idea to put the fill in because they wanted to construct a wall to the boats. It's like a breaker, a water breaker, so the boats will not be pulverized when the boats come in. You see that? You know, right here, a big wall supposed to be there, so the boats --


. . .


A Nor'Easter, so it hits the wall, so he would not pulverize the boats.


Question: So he?


Answer: The boats can be clear here and no damage.


Question: Meaning inside the Cove? In other words, he wanted to create a safe haven inside the Cove for the boats?


MR. WESTFAL: Objection, your Honor.


THE COURT: Overruled.


MR. CLEARY: Answer: Right here.


Question: Indicating the Hook around the Cove; is that right, is that true?


MR. WESTFAL: Objection.


THE COURT: Overruled.


MR. CLEARY: Answer yes.

  (Tr. at 2300, 2301) (emphasis supplied).

  Mednica also testified at the deposition that the filling and dumping of this area occurred in a short period of time, within one month to five weeks. He further stated that he did not know who was doing the dumping. The Court doubts the veracity of this latter statement and finds that the totality of the evidence including the photographs and documentary evidence compels the finding that the Schmitts, either directly or though an agent conducted the dumping and the filling in the Hook around the Cove.

  Charles M. Neckers formerly was employed as an Assistant Commissioner in the City Division of Real Property from 1980 to November 1992. His duty was to oversee sales and leases of the City's surplus real estate. In the latter part of the 1980s the Broad Channel sales program was transferred to Neckers. The responsibility of his department was to manage the property, collect revenues from those who leased the property and eventually "to sell the (Broad Channel) properties to the existing tenants of record." With regard to the sale of the Broad Channel properties, his instructions were to sell the residential properties first, which involved 98% of the Broad Channel property. There were some commercial properties "and they would be handled at the end." (Tr. at 3015). Because there was no accurate survey of all the properties leased to the "900 or so" tenants on Broad Channel, the Broad Channel Association hired a surveyor and had the property surveyed. The survey "sometimes included some adjoining property that was not leased to anyone." (Tr. at 2958). "And, if there was distance between another house, why have a sliver of city property between the two properties, let's split it and sell it to one or the two people on the side, so they can maintain it and they can own it." (Tr. at 2959).

  Only preliminary appraisals were made of the Schmitt property. Neckers never saw a final appraisal of that property. However, Def. Ex. OO is a hand-written memorandum dated May 19, 1981 made by Charles R. Kamps, an appraiser. In this document it is indicated that the owner of Schmitt Marina sent a diagram of what he believed were the true boundaries. "It was felt that it (the Schmitt diagram) was fairly accurate although no formal survey was ever made." (Tr. at 2965). The same memorandum noted that "The land under water in this particular case is threatened by the federal government claim that it is part of the Gateway National Recreation Area and not owned by the marina." (Tr. at 3008). Also, the memorandum estimated the Schmitt Marina "as being approximately 226,000 square feet." (Tr. at 3021). Also in evidence is a letter to the Schmitt Marina from Assistant Commissioner Corrado dated May 20, 1981, which reads as follows:


We have reinspected the area that you diagrammed as being the site of the Schmitt Marina.


We have concluded that your diagram is generally correct as far as can be determined without a survey.


The total area occupied has been estimated to be 226,000 square feet.


The appraised value is still $ 234,000, (sic) and this valuation is slightly less than $ 1.94 a square foot.

  (Def. Ex. B-58).

  However, Neckers never determined what area was leased by the Schmitts, and no accurate survey was ever performed. Neckers concluded that the Schmitts "encroached on City-owned property" based on what he was told by staff and other members of the Department of Real Property. (Tr. at 3027).

  Ultimately, Neckers determined not to sell the marina property to the Schmitts. This determination was based on the Schmitt Marina's DEC violations, the inaccurate survey, the inability to define the actual boundary of the Schmitt Marina, and the resulting inability to agree on price. Another important paper in this documentary case is a memorandum from neckers to Lori Fierstein, Assistant Commissioner, dated October 20, 1989, entitled "Broad Channel Lease Termination," recommending that the Schmitt Marina tenancy be terminated:


Please not that the tenant for this parcel has been cited of numerous DEC violations as evidenced in the attached Notice of Hearing and Complaint. An administrative hearing was held July 6, 1989 but as of this date, no decision has been rendered.


In addition, the tenant has expanded his marina operation, significantly exceeding the 40,000 square feet indicated in the 1962 lease. He currently occupies over 100,000 square feet which includes the use of land within the Gateway National Recreation area which is under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of the Interior. The Department of Interior has commenced an action in Federal District Court to remove the marina from Gateway. The case is being handled by Kevin (sic) Cleary, Assistant United State (sic) Attorney Eastern District. In the even you want to contact Mr. Cleary, he is located at 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201 and can be reached at (718) 330-7100.


In light of the tenants apparent DEC violations, unauthorized expansion and trespass into Gateway, it seems necessary to terminate this lease.

  (Def. Ex. B-474).

  Neckers' reasons for terminating the Schmitt Marina tenancy were "A combination of violations that -- also that tenant had expanded his marine operations behind the 40,000 square feet, and that there was an issue of whether he was in the Gateway National Recreation Area. And at this point, you know, they can't settle the DEC violations, they couldn't settle the issue with the government." (Tr. at 3419).

  Despite the problems with the Schmitt Marina, the City conveyed the residential property to Adam. The Court commends the action of the City by Commissioner Neckers when he stated that "it seemed unfair to treat the house as part of a commercial business. And I instructed staff to see that it was surveyed and conveyed as part of the residential conveyance project." (Tr. at 3048).

  Stuart Lowenthal is a licensed professional engineer and the Acting Director of the New York City Department of Business Services. His division examines applications for waterfront construction, inspects sites and issues certificates of completion, which are similar to certificates of occupancy. His division received an application from John and Adam in February 1994. He processed the file and a work permit card was issued on June 7, 1994 for "rearrangement of existing floats as per plan # 7374 at the foot of 19th Road, Broad Channel." (Def. Ex. B-507). This permit apparently was based on an application dated March 11, 1994 which stated, "In an existing marina, installation of a floating dock assembly for approximately 120 small water crafts." (Def. Ex. B-525). This application was for the foot of 19th Road, which apparently is not in the area of the Cove, at the foot of 20th Road. The application stated that Adam was the tenant and that the City Department of General Services was the owner of the property. Based on the applicant's statements, the property at issue was zoned residential and a marina was not a permitted use.

  The Schmitt permit was revoked by Lowenthal's department on July 18, 1994 (Def. Ex. B-508). The reasons for the revocation were, first, the property described on the permit is in fact owned by Adam as residential property, and use of the property as a marina would constitute a non-conforming use in violation of the zoning. Second, "The work notice inadvertently authorizes the installation of additional dockage for 120 watercraft, when it was intended to authorize only the replacement of dockage legally existing in the marina." (Tr. at 3147)(emphasis in original).

  In 1990, Lowenthal's department issues a permit to one Ronald Finke for 18 slips in Broad Channel. Finke operated a restaurant and he applied to maintain slips "which were to be used exclusively for his restaurant customers to come and tie up and . . . eat at the restaurant, and therefore it is not categorized as a marina." (Tr. at 3180). A permit was issued to install piles and floats for 18 slips. The Finke restaurant and boat slips were on the east side of Broad Channel, on the opposite side from the Schmitt Marina. Lowenthal conceded that he made an error regarding the grandfathering of the Finke boat slips. He should have raised certain issues as to the Finke application, but the Finke permit was never revoked.

  In analyzing both the Finke and Schmitt applications, Lowenthal assumed both facilities were grandfathered in full. However, he learned that the grandfathering rights of the Schmitt house on West 19th Road were not applicable to the marina on West 20th Road. In addition, the Schmitts applied to add 120 more slips instead of reconfiguring the original 120 slips. Upon hearing this additional information, he revoked the permit.

  On March 6, 1992, Lowenthal's department received an application by Marilyn Martin for the Sunset Marina located at 64 West 10th Road in Broad Channel. The Sunset Marina is located on the west side of Cross Bay Boulevard, the same side as the Schmitt Marina. The application was "to reconstruct 203 feet of existing timber bulkhead and to install docks and floats." Although there was a dispute as to the correct zoning of this marina, the Martin application was approved. The City sold the Martin-Sunset Marina property to Mrs. Martin under the non-residential phase of the Broad Channel conveyance project. Lowenthal testified that although the marina was probably zoned in R3-2, which ordinarily would not include a marina, it was "probably" grandfathered in. (Tr. at 3292). He explained the "grandfather" procedure as follows:


A The determining factor would be how many slips were there when the zoning resolution was adopted. So, theoretically if somebody had, let's say 100 slips in 1961, and had 50 slips last year, and asked to add 50 more to come up to the amount they had in 1961, it should be permissible.

  (Tr. at 3295).

  Lowenthal also testified that grandfathering rights cease if the use is discontinued for a period of two years or more. (Tr. at 3328). Also, the grandfather rights are related to the specific structure in use in 1961. For example, if in 1961, a marina had 100 mooring buoys in use, the could not be converted into 100 docks. As to the replacement sought by the Schmitts for their docks, the new docks would have to be the same number, type and size as those grandfathered in and placed in the same location. For example, grandfathering rights applicable to the marina on 20th Road could not be applied to Adam's house on 19th Road because they were separate sites.

  However, the Court finds that another element must be considered with regard to the Cove. Namely, the contention by the United States that the land and water constituting the Cove was transferred by the City to the Federal Government for Gateway in 1974 and became federal land at that time. As such, it was no longer City land and was not subject to City zoning regulations, including the City grandfathering rules. In this regard, Lowenthal testified as follows:


THE COURT: I will ask it.


If the government receives this property as part of the Gateway National Park, any such property, assuming it received such property, Mr. Lowenthal, would your authority to permit the zoning or terminate the zoning in that Gateway Nation Park area terminate?




THE COURT: You wouldn't have authority to do it?



  (Tr. at 3326-3327).

  Robert Gleusner is the Supervising Permit Inspector of the New York City Department of Business Services. His duties include supervising field inspectors and issuing summonses for violations. Gleusner formerly was a field inspector and visited Broad Channel once very two or three weeks. He inspected the six or seven marinas and boat clubs on Broad Channel. He issued a violation to the Finke Sandbar Marina for renting some of the slips instead of using them for restaurant patrons only. On September 16, 1987 Gleusner issued a notice of violation to John Schmitt for "No float plans for marina and no permits for new piles and floats installed." He issued the notice of violation after a personal inspection of the Schmitt Marina; based upon a complaint by a man located on the north side of the marina. As a result of this violation notice, Gleusner issued two summonses, although he could find no record of the disposition of the summonses. John Schmitt told him that they had been dismissed. In November 1994, several weeks prior to the day he testified in this case, Gleusner served a revocation order on the Schmitt Marina. This was the only marina renovation order he served.

  John M. Schmitt is the son of Adam and Ernestine and the grandson of Adele. John was born in 1951 and was 43 years of age when he testified at the trial. The Court notes that John Schmitt is a poised articulated witness. He is also obviously comfortable in a courtroom setting having testified hundreds of times as a police officer in Colorado. (Tr. at 5767). John lived in Colorado between 1976 and 1981, and visited the marina only periodically during that time. He obtained numerous documents from the Parks Department of the City of New York which were received in evidence.

  According to John, the Broad Channel community includes the toe of the boot, now referred to in some maps and documents as "Big Egg Marsh" (see for example the red outline made by John on Def Ex. B-59, B-138 and B-152). John testified that the area east of the Cove was land and not marsh, while west of the Cove there is marshland. John explained that the marshland is subject to the tide and is covered by water two times a day. In 1963 his family operated the marina and he was present on a regular basis. In an aerial photograph taken on May 3, 1969, the area east of the Cove appears to be marshland with no riprap wall in the area of the Hook partially encircling the cove. (See Def. Ex. B-78). Notably, in an aerial photograph dated August 8, 1984, there is definite evidence of land in the Hook (see Plf. Ex. 3).

  John testified at length regarding the location and size of the Schmitt Marina. As shown on an aerial photograph dated April 19, 1954 (Def. Ex. B-2) John estimated the size of Adam's Fishing Station, including the Cove and the land at 300,000 square feet. In the June 11, 1959 rental memorandum (Def. Ex. B-398), it was noted that "a new agreement being drawn for additional space at increased rental, to start, as of 6/1/59." On July 2, 1959, a new lease was issued (Def. Ex. B-400), again describing the property as "Foot of West 20th Road." On August 12, 1959 another lease was executed (Def. Ex. B-402). While the lease stated "Additional space. Old agreements cancelled," it nevertheless described the lease premises as "Foot of West 20th Road" and the space as "200' X 200'." However, viewing a June 24, 1959 aerial photograph, John estimated the size of the area occupied by the marina as 350,000 square feet. The Court is unable to ascertain how he arrived at this figure.

  John described the area of John's Fishing Station acquired by his family from Pasienza in 1968. After the purchase, John's Fishing Station, and its customers, became part of the Schmitt Marina.

  There are additional leases in evidence. The July 1, 1959 lease locates the premises as Block 210 "Foot of West 20th Road" for a "boat storage and fishing station." (Def. Ex. B-400). The August 12, 1959 lease describes the premises as "Foot of West 20th Road: in block 310. The space is listed as "200' X 200'" (Def. Ex. B-402). Also in a letter from the City to Adele dated January 18, 1962 the lease property was described as "Block 210 - Foot of West 20th Road - Area X 200 sq. ft." (Def. Ex. B-404). In addition, an application dated March 25, 1962 or March 28, 1962 also describes the area as "sq. ft. 40,000." (Def. Ex. B-149).

  Reviewing the aerial photograph taken on June 24, 1959, when he was eight years old, (Def. Ex. B-169), John stated that Adam's Fishing Station used the water in the Cove and north of the Cove, while John's Fishing Station used the water in the West 19th Road canal. He described one long dock that went north to south (Dock A) and boats in the Cove on moorings. Also there were poles in the water in the Cove. He would row customers out to their boats moored in the Cove. According to John, the Cove belonged to the Schmitts. Notwithstanding the dimensions and locations set forth in all the marina leases, John "estimated" the square footage of both Adam's Fishing Station and John's Fishing Station in 1959, when he was very young, as a total of 400,000 square feet, including 300,000 square feet of land. (Tr. at 3645-3646).

  John testified that the first photograph in which the Cove is shown was an aerial photograph taken some time between 1938 and 1940 (Def. Ex. B-155E). Prior to that time the photographs showed no Cove was in existence. According to John, the Cove "has been dug out" between 1924 and 1938. To demonstrate this point, John points to a 1924 aerial photograph which shows the toe of the boot without a Cove(Def. Ex. B-155C). John describes Broad Channel and its canals and streets as the teeth of a comb. He stated that the Cove and the canals in the teeth of the comb were man made and dug out after 1924.

  John testified that block 210 "stands from Cross Bay Boulevard west all the way to the Raunt Channel." (Tr. at 3920). Therefore, the westerly boundary of the Schmitt Marina would be the Raunt Channel. The Court finds that the location of the "Raunt Channel" is somewhat confusing because various maps, drawn in different years and times in the development of Broad Channel, show the name "Raunt Channel" in various and imprecise locations. John says that this name was first used "in 1900 or even earlier," with regard to the "Raunt Channel." In this regard, the Court agrees with the Assistant United States Attorney, when he stated:


Secondly, there is a thing called the Raunt Channel. There is also a thing called the Raunt.


The problem is Mr. Citak's argument proves too much because the Raunt is everywhere. If you go through the map, the Raunt is around the island, the Raunt is an island. The Raunt is a term that is used very generally out there and it is not something of absolute precision.


Okay. So that's what the Raunt is. Nobody knows what the Raunt is.

  (Tr. at 3922).

  Although John asserted that there was a "definite understanding" of the location of the Raunt, when asked to describe this location he stated that there were "only three locations known as the Raunt." The Court finds that the parties failed to prove any determinative relationship between the so-called "Raunt Channel" and the issues in this case. This is so, despite a City document describing the western boundary of the Schmitt property as the "Raunt Channel" (Def. Ex. MM). The problem is that other documents place the Raunt in different locations (see for example, Def. Ex. C, B-140 and B-147).

  Another confusing and unclear area in this case is the different block and lot numbers in the many documents in evidence. The geographic maps, developer maps and tax maps over many years and a rapidly evolving area, apparently have different block and lot numbers. For example, on a tax map the block numbers show as 15350 (Def. Ex. B-147). How this tax map number relates to "block 210" as set forth in the lease documents, is unclear.

  John testified that he took over the ownership and operation of the marina in 1981. The first notice he received of a claim by the Federal Government was in 1989. The Federal Government claimed that "the Schmitt Marina was trespassing and they wanted me to move my docks, my walks and my house." (Tr. at 4100). In 1990 or 1991 he received notice from the City that he was encroaching on City-owned land. A significant letter dated September 30, 1983, warned the Schmitts about John's "unauthorized grading and filling of unleased City-owned land, that adjoins property that you lease from the City of New York (Def. Ex. B-417). The letter ordered John to "cease and desist from doing this again." He was further warned that "any repetition of this type activity in the future by you or any of your agents will cause the City to take appropriate action in the Courts." John stated that he was not filling in the area but "was just digging." (Tr. at 4132).

  As stated above, Ronald Trenchetto, the Broad Channel Director, wrote to the Schmitts and to the commanding officer of the 100th Precinct on January 10, 1984 to follow up on the prior notification, (Def. Exhs. MM and B-421). Once again, the Schmitts were notified not to grade or fill on unleased City-owned property. Trenchetto wrote to the Schmitts again on February 29, 1984 and reiterated the City's warning that "any further repetition of this activity will result in the initiation of eviction proceedings and an immediate termination of your lease." (Def. Ex. B-424). This letter also refers to Carl Mednica and "the property he leases located next to your leased site." There is no documentary evidence to support the assertion that Mednica leased the area of the Hook.

  Another document adding to the confusion about the exact boundaries of the Schmitt Marina is a letter from DEC to Neckers, Assistant Commissioner of City Division of Real Property dated April 29, 1986 (Def. Ex. B-111). In this letter, DEC recites certain violations with regard to "placement of fill and erection of a retaining seawall in navigable waters, tidal wetlands and adjacent areas" at a site leased to Schmitt's Marina. In this letter it is stated that after discussions by the City and DEC "it is clear that no specific boundaries exist under Schmitt's lease." The Court finds that the only clear delineation of the boundaries of the Schmitt Marina are in the original City leases which describe the property as at the foot of West 20th Road and 200' X 200' in area.

  There is in evidence a handwritten appraisal by Franklin M. Glaspie, Jr., a City employee after an inspection on April 16, 1992 (Def. Ex. B-439). John was present at the time of this inspection and appraisal. This document relates the history of the Schmitt Marina, as follows:


History of Subject Property


The subject property was first leased to Adele Schmitt on July 1, 1959 from the City of New York for $ 124.00 a month. There was a second lease in 1962 that set forth an area of 40,000 square feet to be leased for $ 150.00 a month. Currently the subject property, which comprises 506,089 square feet, is being leased for $ 229.00 a month. It is operated and occupied by John and Adam Schmitt and is known as Schmitts Marina.

  John was questioned about the 1992 appraisal and the increase in the boundaries of the Schmitt Marina, which apparently took place over the passage of years and is of the view that the Schmitt Marina occupies more than 506,089 square feet:


Mr. Schmitt, is it your testimony that you leased that entire area?


A No, it is not.


Q Is it your testimony that the area you lease includes that entire area?


A Some of it.


Q Some of what?


A Some of what area includes, and some does not include.


Q So, in your view it is not at accurate depiction of your leasehold?


A That's correct.


. . . .


Q Isn't it also true that this memorandum states that the tenant, that is to say, Schmitt's Marina, is occupying about 506,000 square feet of land?


A Yes.


. . . .


Q Looking again to your notes to this appraisal, it says here that the subject property was first leased to Adele Schmitt on July 1st, 1959 from the City of New York for 134 dollars a month.


Do you see where it says that?


A That's correct.


Q There was a second lease in 1962 that set forth an area of 40,000 square feet to be leased for $ 150 a month.


Do you see that?


A Yes, I do.


Q Currently the subject property which comprises 506,089 square feet is being leased for 229 dollars a month.


Do you agree with those statements? Do you think they are accurate?


In particular let me ask you -- let me withdraw that.


Is it true that you present lease approximately 500,000 square feet; is that true?


A I believe it is closer to 600,000.


Q I want to hear what you have to say on this and why you think this is wrong.


So, your view is that -- how large is the size of the July 1, 1959 lease mentioned in the first sentence for $ 134 a month? How large was that?


A 40,000 square feet short of 600,000.

  (Tr. at 4487-4493).

  John testified that the water in the Cove is included in the lease to his family, but was not included in the 1992 appraisal. If so, the claimed area of the Schmitt Marina is greatly in excess of 506,000 square feet, an unlikely circumstance.

  As to the filling and dumping, John testified that the Schmitts did "legal filling" in the wetlands in and prior to 1968. For example, he acknowledged replacing a bulkhead at the shoreline where the land and the water meet and doing filling "behind the bulkhead" in 1984 and 1988. (Tr. at 5091-5092). Nevertheless, John denied that the Schmitts did any filling in the wetlands after 1968. (Tr. at 5038-5039). John consistently denied that the Hook was part of his leasehold, and he emphatically stated that the Schmitts never exercised any dominion and control over the area of the Hook. This was the area that DEC wanted the Schmitts to "clean up." The Court finds that it was convenient for the Schmitts to disclaim control over the Hook for two reasons. First, someone filled in the Hook and destroyed the natural habitat, with the ensuing potential liability to such a wrongdoer. Second, the Schmitts did not need to claim that their leasehold included the Hook. It was built to shelter their boats in the Cove and thus was beneficial to the operation of their marina, without the accompanying remediation problems. Stated simply, the Schmitts wanted and obtained the benefit of the shelter of the Hook, without any of the liabilities.

  All during this time, the City and the DEC attempted to obtain an accurate survey of the Schmitt Marina, without success. John testified that he never authorized a survey and never saw a final survey of the marina property, although he asked the City for such a survey for years. (Tr. at 5098-5099). John adhered to his view that the Gateway map did not accurately describe the boundaries of Gateway, despite the fact that the metes and bounds in the Gateway map "precisely tracks the March 1, 1974 conveyance, which is Exhibit 5 in evidence." (Tr. at 5527). In fact, John stated a number of times during his testimony that the National Park Service did not know the boundaries of its own parks in the area of the Schmitt Marina. The Court disagrees and finds that the metes and bounds on the Gateway Conveyance Deed and Map accurately describe and show the Gateway boundary near the Schmitt Marina leasehold.

  Another summons against John Schmitt was issued by the City on January 19. 1989 for placement of fill in regulated tidal wetlands without required permits. (Def. Ex. B-463). This case was dismissed after trial in the Criminal Court. After this dismissal the DEC served a notice of violation against the marina. There was a hearing on this violation on July 6, 1989. John did not attend this hearing because he was sick. Following the placing of this DEC violation, John was contacted by the United States by letter dated January 4, 1989 (Def. Ex. N-1). John stated that this was the first notice to the Schmitt family from the Federal Government. This letter stated, in part:


Dear Mr. Schmitt,


Portions of a marina facility owned and operated by you are trespassing onto United States Government Property. As shown in the enclosed aerial photo, boundary map, and survey (Figures 1 - 3) all of the floating docks and mooring slips, and portions of structures and outbuildings are on property administered by the National Park Service. The exact location of the boundary will be surveyed in the near future.


In addition to the trespass problem, there has been extensive unauthorized filling of tidal wetlands. Information provided us by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation indicates that this fill has been placed in conjunction with the operation of your marina, and that you have been issued cease and desist orders to halt.


By this letter, I am by hereby notifying you that you are in trespass on property belonging to the United States, and that all structures, improvements, and associated materials and goods must be removed. Fill placed into tidal wetlands must be removed and the site restored to its original condition. In addition, this matter will be referred to the United States Environmental Protection Agency and United States Army Corps of Engineers.


. . .


If we have not heard from you within ten days of your receipt of this letter, this matter will be referred to the United States Attorney for prosecution.

  John replied to this letter and in response Gateway wrote to John on February 3, 1989, enclosing a copy of the laws and deed transferring the City lands to the United States, together with 1984 aerial photographs. (Def. Ex. N-2). Thereafter a "public notice" was place in the local newspaper, The Rockaway Wave, by the Assistant United States Attorney in charge of this case. (Def. B-476). According to John, as a result of this published advertisement about 200 of his 250 customers requested return of their deposits and departed the marina. Also, John stated that this notice had a "detrimental effect on the name of the family."

  On May 10, 1990 the City served a "thirty day notice to vacate premises." (Def. Ex. B-479). One of the notices was for a 40,000 square foot expired lease and the other was for unleased property occupied by the Schmitts. Remarkably, John testified that he received about seventy thirty-day notices. The alleged violations of the lease include: (1) expanding beyond the boundaries of the leasehold; (2) DEC violations; and (3) trespass into Gateway. After receiving the May 10, 1990 thirty-day notice, the Schmitts commenced a legal action in the Supreme Court, Queens County, to prevent the City from terminating the lease. ("The State Action"). In response to these charges, John testified that there was no change in the area used by the marina between 1970 and 1990. The Court disagrees and rejects this contention.

  Presently, John is paying rent for the Schmitt Marina in the sum of $ 229.00 per month. He has continued to pay this rent to the City and, as of June 16, 1995, the date he testified on this subject, the City has continued to accept the rent.

  B. The Alleged Conspiracy

  The Schmitts claim that they are the victims of a conspiracy between the Federal Government, the State of New York and the City of New York. As John put it:


I believe that the City, the state and the federal government realized that there was a mistake made, and that it went on for so long they didn't know what to do. So they had a meeting and decided to try to put pressure on to me to go ahead and put me out of business; that the federal government requested that the docks could stay in place, but I was not allowed to have customers at my marina. . . And not only that I lost income from my customers.


I believe that the City of New York has systematically reduced the size of what they believe to be my marina. . . Systematically it kept decreasing where they took the one lease for 40,000 square feet, and went ahead and tried to relate that it is the whole that it is the whole leasehold interest, that it was only 40,000 square feet. They indicated that the 40,000 square feet is completely within the -- away from the water; that not one inch of the marina water is available, even though the documents state that portions of the marina were constantly under water.


. . . .


. . . And as soon as they talk about lease there is this 40,000 square feet of area that is up on land that is not anywhere near the water.


They systematically tried to say that block 210 is an exact location, that it is from a developer's map, although the documents show that block 210 whole area is the marina, that the whole area was called block 210...


. . . .


I think there is ample evidence to show that we did have permits.


The Court was led to believe that a Nationwide Permit was a piece of paper, to the point where quite a few times I constantly said I had a Nationwide Permit.


I was told by the Army Corps of Engineers I had a Nationwide Permit.


. . . .


I believe that all the little untruths or inaccurate statements add up to show that there was combined effort to go ahead and try to get me off the land. One may have wanted it for purposes of mitigation. Another one may have wanted it for purposes to clear out the problem, and some of them I believe was for personal gain. I believe that the concessionaire of Barren Island Marina pled guilty to bribery. He had to bribe somebody.

  (Tr. 5257-5272).

  In support of his "conspiracy" and "vindictiveness" theory, John points to the handwritten notes of Shelly Goldman, the City Director of Lease Enforcement, made in 1992, that our "Plan now -- is to put Schmidt's (sic) against the wall so we can dictate the terms of a lease to him." (Def. Ex. B-495). As will be set forth later in this opinion, the Court finds that the Schmitts failed to prove any unlawful conspiracy or vindictiveness on the part of the United States, the City or the State of New York.

  The Schmitts also allege an apparent equal protection or selective enforcement claim. John testified that there are 24 clubs and marinas on Broad Channel, some of which encroach on Gateway property. He points to the Sandbar Marina, located approximately 450 feet from the Schmitt Marina, as encroaching over the pier and dock lines. Also, the Sunset Marina on 10th Road, which is eight blocks away from the Schmitt Marina, was permitted to use its docks. In addition, John contends that the Sandbar, JB and Sunset Marinas all received City permits, which was denied to the Schmitt Marina. After reviewing the aerial photographs and the relevant documents, the Court sees no massive encroachment similar to the Schmitt Marina Cove and Hook situation and the substantial self-enlargement of the Schmitt Marina property.

  In this regard, John testified that he is the only resident of Broad Channel who was denied the right to purchase his leasehold. Also, he purportedly was discriminated against in connection with the installation of sewers in Broad channel in 1991. Further, the Army Corps of Engineers gave a permit to the Barren Island Marina, but his application was never acted upon. The Court notes, however, that the Barren Island Marina is not on Broad Channel and its status is irrelevant to the factual situations involved in this case.

  In his preliminary injunction hearing, and at this trial, John admitted that the boundaries of his lease were indefinite, without exact metes and bounds. He was questioned about this testimony at the preliminary injunction hearing:


Question: Perhaps, can you explain?


Answer: They rented the property down there, they had no markings or boundaries. Nobody ever knew where it was. When records changed, when people in the office, that is what I believe, started giving exact figures, someone put block 210, lot 99, they said put it down, 40,000 square feet, that's 40000, 40,000 square feet. And the guy would come down every month from the Department of Real Estate collecting his rent. And that is going on for years.


Question by the Court: It is a very indefinite boundary?


The Witness: Yes.

  (Pl Tr. at 1362); (Tr. at 5583).

  Edward Smith was the City Real Estate Manager for Broad Channel during the period of the 1960s and 1970s. John admits that Smith used to "hang out at the marina." On August 28, 1978, in a City disciplinary proceeding, Smith pled guilty to charges involving corruption. Having read the file involving the disciplinary proceeding, John testified that Smith was not an "honest civil servant" and "was a crock." (Tr. at 5606). The United States attempted to show that this corrupt City manager permitted the Schmitts to expand their 40,000 square foot lease to what they claim to be approximately 600,000 square feet for a rental of $ 150 to $ 229 per month. The Court agrees and finds that Smith permitted the Schmitts to expand their lease without valid authority by the City:


Q How many square feet including -- let's call it bottom lands, land under water. How many square feet of you claim you were leasing from the City of New York in the early 70's?


A I believe it to be around 600,000 square feet.


Q So you think $ 150 a month in the early 70's was a fair rent for 600,000 square feet of land, of city land?


. . .


A I can't answer that -- do I think $ 150?


Q Yes.


A No.

  (Tr. at 5616).

  Actually, the Schmitts paid more rent in 1962, namely $ 250 per month, than the $ 229 per month they now pay. Indeed, they have not paid any rent on the Orean-Pasienza leasehold since 1989, because of the eviction proceeding by the City.

  John met with Gateway officials prior to the 1974 conveyance deed and knew that "The National Park was being set up on (his) doorstep." (Tr. at 5659). However, he did nothing to ascertain the exact boundaries of his lease, knowing that Gateway was at his doorstep and may very well have included a portion of the land and water which the claimed to be part of the Schmitt Marina. John apparently took his chances.

  John testified that he knows Mednica as a contractor who stored equipment at the Schmitt's boatyard. John corroborated Mednica's testimony that the Schmitts permitted Mednica to store his equipment without charge, in return for allowing them to use his equipment. John was questioned about Mednica's deposition testimony linking the Schmitts to filling the Hook.. He stated that Mednica stored two boats on Schmitt Marina loaned and no fee was charged, even though their normal fee was $ 1200 per season, because they used Mednica's backhoe, which was stored at the boatyard. John denied that his family was involved in the filling of the Hook in 1975 and 1976. However, the Court notes that he was in Colorado on a local police force during that period and only returned periodically to Broad Channel. John admitted that his family strung rope and tires on the edge of the Hook, "to act as a breakwater." He also conceded that a riprap wall of broken concrete "would have done a better job than those tires on a rope."

  Despite the number of City leases with the Schmitt family which state that the leased property is 200' X 200' or 40,000 square feet, John continued to deny this documentary fact. (Tr. at 5804, 5820-5823). The Court finds that John Schmitt was an evasive witness who repeatedly refused to admit facts clearly set forth in the documentary evidence. The Court further finds that all of the Schmitt leases set forth a leasehold consisting of 200' X 200' or 40,000 square feet, even though John now claims that the Schmitt Marina leasehold is in excess of 600,000 square feet. The Court finds no such support for the Schmitts' claim of a 600,000 plus square foot marina. The Court finds that John Schmitt attempted to avoid the contrary clear documentary evidence merely by saying that "he doesn't agree" with this evidence

  As to the fraud cause of action by the Schmitts against the City, the complaint alleges that the Schmitt family was fraudulently induced to enter into leases that they would not otherwise have entered into, but for misrepresentations by various city officials at various dates from the 1960s through the 1980s. John contends that the misrepresentations were by City officials in that they underestimated the size of the Schmitt leasehold. However, John expressly denied that the Schmitts were fraudulently induced to enter any lease:


Q Mr. Schmitt, what lease did you enter into that you were fraudulently induced to enter into?


A I don't believe we were fraudulently induced to enter any lease, if that is what you are asking me?

  (Tr. at 6217).

  Other claims of fraud by the Schmitts include: (1) that the property they are leasing has been illegally taken away from them; (2) that the City is now stating that the leased premises is smaller than actually leased; (3) that the City gave testimony in the DEC trial that we leased certain property and then, later on, stated that we didn't lease that area; (4) that although the City represented that the Schmitts were treated fairly, they were the only tenant who was denied the right to purchase the land; (5) that the City alleged that the Schmitts "were scofflaws and committed DEC violations, while 50 percent of the people in Broad Channel also had violations; (6) the City refused to allow the Schmitts to use their water rights; (7) the City granted other marinas in Broad Channel the right to use water and docks outside of their lease boundaries; (8) in shutting off the water to the Schmitt's home; (9) in not stopping Mednica in filling the area around the Hook; and (9) in denying the Schmitts the right to hook up to the sewer system. The Court finds that none of these allegations, even if proved, would establish a viable tort action in fraud.

  John also testified about the Schmitts' claim of breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment. However, he conceded that there has never been an actual eviction or a constructive eviction, in that the Schmitts have never been physically removed from the property nor have they abandoned any part of the leasehold. John contends the eviction is evidenced by (1) shutting off their water; (2) refusing to let them put boats in a certain area of the marina. Insofar as the shutting off water contention, the initial problem occurred in the midst of the litigation, concerning the lease boundaries. Ultimately, the City offered John a standard license agreement to permit him to repair the water line (Def. Ex. B-489) and he declined to sign it. (Tr. at 6244-6245). Further, in the 1959 lease (Def. Ex. B-400), and the 1962 lease (Pl. Ex. 27), the Schmitts agreed not to make any improvements without the written consent of the City, and they never obtained any such written consent.

  At the time he testified in 1996, Edward Smith was 89 years of age and decidedly feeble appearing and sounding. As stated above, he was a real estate manager for the City Department of Real Estate, was in charge of the Department of Real Estate in Broad Channel, and, in that capacity he drew up leases. Smith was familiar with that area and its boot shape and was also familiar with the Schmitt Marina, located "in the area of West 20th Road," which was one of the larger pieces of real property in Broad Channel, a portion of which was water. There were no markings in metes and bounds on Broad Channel.

  Smith remembers the Schmitt family, "a very fine family." During his time at Broad Channel he became friends with Adam and "would like to help them." (Tr. at 6424). His signature appears on an application for permit dated March 25, 1962 (Def. Ex. B-149). He drew the diagram on the document which was for "additional portion which we charged X-amount of dollars more on the leasehold." (Tr. at 6382). However, when he was asked to explain what he meant by "additional land," Smith responded "I'm sorry. I just can't think straight." He wrote the space figure as "200 by 200" and "40,000 sq. ft." and that "portion of the areas are constantly under water." (Tr. at 6385-6386). Although this lease calls for an increase in rent, it does not say that the amount of land is being increased. Smith also signed the lease dated April 16, 1962, which refers to block 210, foot of West 20th Road, area of 40,000 square feet. (Pl. Ex. 27). However, Smith testified that even though the lease said 200' X 200' and 40,000 square feet, Adam's Fishing Station occupied a lot more land.

  Smith recalls that the John Orean lease, which was purchased by Adam Schmitt was "about 20 by 20" in size. Orean stored boats at his marina along the 19th Road canal. Asked to describe the boundaries of Adam's Fishing Station (the Schmitt Marina), Smith stated "I couldn't tell you that." (Tr. at 6398). Of importance, Smith testified that he did not think the Cove was part of the leased property:


Q Do you recall, Mr. Smith, whether there was a cove in that area?


A There was a cove, yes.


Q And was the fishing station -- was the cove part of the fishing station?


MR. SHAW: Objection.


THE COURT: Overruled.


A I imagine Mr. Schmitt used to store boats there.


THE COURT: I'm sorry. Read it back.


(Record read.)


Do you remember the cove?


THE WITNESS: I remember the cove, yeah.


THE COURT:Was the cove part of the property that was involved in that document you just saw?


THE WITNESS: I don't think so.

  (Tr. at 6401) (emphasis supplied).

  Smith does not recall "any incident of Adam Schmitt being involved with any fill." However, on cross-examination he conceded that he may have been aware of hundreds of dump trucks depositing concrete at the foot of 19th Road.

  By deposition, Shelley Goldman, Director of Lease Enforcement for the City Division of Real Property, testified that legal action was initiated on only one situation on Broad Channel, namely, the Schmitt family and Marina.

  Glen Chernick also testified by deposition. He was Assistant General Counsel in the City Division of Real Property and also was Project Manager in Broad Channel. He visited the Schmitt Marina one time in 1989, 1990 or 1991. Two thirty-day notices were served on the Schmitts in 1990. Questioned about the location of the Schmitt Marina, Chernick testified that the location is based on the lease description, namely, "Foot of 20th Road" and "40,000 square feet." He stated that he did not know where the 40,000 square foot are was located and he could never locate the boundaries of the Schmitt property or of the Raunt Channel.

   C. The Schmitt Damages

  John testified as to the damages allegedly caused by the actions of the City, State and Federal Government in the so-called conspiracy against the Schmitt Marina. John testified that prior to May 1990 the marina rented 250 slips or spots in the water. He stated that when the preliminary injunction was issued in May 1990, the marina lost all its customers and could not rent any spots in or out of the cove. The marina lost both summer and winter storage customers. The summer customers rented from April 10th to October 10th. The winter customers rented from October 10th to April 10th. In May 1990, the fee charged was $ 1200 per year per boat, for both summer and winter. Because they only had one dock from 1990, they suffered a substantial loss of docking fees. Their boats had to be stored on land and they were compelled to purchase a forklift for the sum of $ 150,000.

  In addition, the marina sold Monarch boats and had two other boat dealerships. The marina lost these dealerships when the water portion of the marina was shut down. The marina presently has one engine and one cruiser dealership. John testified that he could not put a value on these lost dealerships. The Schmitts also incurred legal expenses, court costs and the expenses for expert witnesses. In addition, the engineering work to obtain permits cost between $ 30,000 to $ 40,000. The Schmitts introduced a handwritten chart setting forth their alleged damages as of August 1995, as follows: DAMAGES Attorneys fees incurred (app) $ 400,000 Court Reporter 11,000 Engineering Expenses 64,000 Loss of Dockage 1200 per slips X 250 300,000 # of years 4 Total Loss $ 1,200,000 1200 per slips X 210 252,000 Total $ 1,927,000


© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.