1995-1
View/download document
Cite as N.Y. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 1995-1
HIGHWAY LAW §§ 115, 115-b, 115-c, 130, 234.
A county may provide for the reversion of a bridge, which is
part of the county road system, to a town in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Highway Law §§ 115-b and 115-c.
January 24, 1995
Louis E. Wolfe, Esq.
Informal Opinion
County Attorney
No. 95-1
County of Clinton
10 Healy Avenue
Plattsburgh, NY 12401
Dear Mr. Wolfe:
You advise that several years ago Clinton County (the
"County") took over from the Town of Mooers (the "Town") a bridge
having a span greater than twenty-five feet. The bridge is
located on a Town road. You inquire whether the County may
transfer jurisdiction of the bridge back to the Town, and, if so,
by what mechanism.
In a telephone conversation, your county superintendent of
highways has advised the County obtained jurisdiction of the
bridge by a resolution the County adopted in the 1940s, whereby
the County agreed to maintain and repair all town bridges within
the County. He advises that the County has closed and barricaded
the bridge, but has not abandoned the bridge pursuant to the
provisions of Highway Law § 234 (hereafter "HL"; see, generally,
1986 Op Atty Gen [Inf] 135). He advises further that the bridge
does not appear on the County's map of the county road system,
prepared pursuant to the provisions of HL § 115.
Because the bridge does not appear on the county road system
map, the bridge is not a part of the county road system.
However, we have not identified any provision of law which
prohibits the County from amending the county road system map to
include the bridge. Highway Law § 115 provides for such an
amendment as follows:
"Amendments to such map may from time to time
be made by such county superintendent and if
approved by such board of supervisors and the
commissioner of transportation shall be filed
in the office of the county clerk and county
superintendent."
Were the County to amend the county road system map to
include the bridge, the provisions of HL §§ 130, 115-b and 115-c
2
would apply. Highway Law § 130 provides that any bridge located
on a county road system shall be deemed a part of the road on
which it is located. Pursuant to HL § 115-b, the board of
supervisors of a county may, by resolution, remove a road or part
of a road from the county road system. Highway Law § 115-b
provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
"Upon the recommendation of the county
superintendent of highways and pursuant to a
written agreement with the governing body of
a town, village or city, or in the event such
an agreement cannot be reached with the
approval of the commissioner of
transportation, the board of supervisors of
any county may remove a road or part of a
road from the county road system and upon
adoption of the resolution therefor by the
board the county map, referred to in section
one hundred fifteen of this chapter, shall be
amended as provided for in said section so as
to eliminate said road or part of said road
from said map and said road or part of said
road shall thereupon revert to the town or
towns or village or city or cities wherein
said road or part of said road is situated
. . .."
Per HL § 115-c, thirty days before the reverter is effective, the
County must give notice of the reverter to the clerk and
supervisors of the town.
We conclude, therefore, that assuming that the County amends
the county road system map to include the bridge, the County may
provide thereafter for the reversion of the bridge to the Town
pursuant to the provisions of Highway Law §§ 115-b and 115-c.
The Attorney General renders formal opinions only to
officers and departments of State government. This perforce is
an informal and unofficial expression of the views of this
office.
Very truly yours,
MICHAEL D. MORGAN
Assistant Attorney General