In a recent ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Dolores Draina against the Town of Ballston and other defendants. Draina claimed that guardrails installed by the town obstructed her access to her property, but the court found that her legal arguments did not hold up under scrutiny.

This case, Draina v. Town of Ballston, docket number CV-25-1480, centers on a dispute involving property rights and municipal regulations. The court's decision, issued on June 18, 2026, is significant for property owners who may find themselves in similar situations regarding municipal actions affecting their land.

Background

Dolores Draina owns two parcels of land located on opposite sides of Outlet Road in the Town of Ballston, Saratoga County. The dispute began in April 2024 when the Town installed guardrails along Outlet Road, which Draina claimed hindered her ability to cross the road freely between her properties. The guardrails were placed entirely within the town's right-of-way and did not encroach upon Draina's property.

After learning about the guardrail installation, Draina sought to have an opening created in the guardrails to facilitate her access. However, her request was denied by town officials, citing safety concerns. Following this, Draina filed a notice of claim and subsequently initiated a lawsuit against the Town of Ballston, various town officials, and Saratoga County, alleging that the guardrails constituted an illegal taking of her property and asserting multiple causes of action.

The Ruling

The Appellate Division, which included Judges Pritzker, Ceresia, Fisher, McShan, and Corcoran, affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss Draina's claims. The court found that the guardrails were installed within the town's right-of-way and did not constitute a taking of Draina's property under the law. The court stated, "Even accepting plaintiff's allegations that the guardrails affect her use of her property, such interference does not constitute an acquisition within the meaning of the EDPL."

The court emphasized that Draina's claims did not demonstrate a valid legal theory, as the guardrails did not physically occupy her land or interfere with her property rights in a manner that would warrant compensation. The ruling clarified that a property interest must exist before it can be claimed to have been taken, and since the guardrails were within the town's right-of-way, no taking occurred.

Impact

This ruling has important implications for property owners and municipalities alike. It reinforces the principle that local governments have the authority to regulate public spaces, including the installation of safety features like guardrails, as long as they remain within their designated right-of-way. Property owners may find it challenging to claim damages or assert rights when municipal actions do not directly encroach upon their land.

Additionally, the court's decision serves as a precedent for similar cases where property owners might argue that municipal actions have diminished their property rights. The ruling clarifies the legal standards for what constitutes a taking under the law, potentially discouraging frivolous lawsuits against municipalities based on claims of property interference.

What's Next

Draina's options for appeal appear limited following this ruling. The court's decision is final unless new grounds for appeal arise or additional evidence comes to light. There are no related cases pending that could influence this ruling.