New York Woman Fights Back Against State Park Entrance on Her Property
You’d have to imagine that the appeal of purchasing a home that backs up to a state park is the fact that you can assume that the landscape around you will always be carefully preserved and maintained. Many state parks offer lush views and easy access to amenities like swimming, which makes them seem like an ideal place to live.
But what happens when the property you buy suddenly becomes part of the state park thanks to an easement that turns a portion of your yard into a path that is traveled by other people looking to enjoy the great outdoors? That’s what Laura Bergman says happened to her property that is located outside Dockside Park in Cold Spring, New York.
According to The Highlands Current, the homeowner purchased her property in 2012 knowing that there would be an easement on the property allowing a small amount of traffic to move through her yard. But now she says that a separate deal that was signed in 2020 should be null and void since it would bring too much activity through her yard.
And she’s not the only one who is upset about the arrangement. The Village of Cold Spring and the Town of Philipstown have filed a lawsuit against the state park, Hudson Highlands Fjord Trail Inc., and Putnam County. Bergman has joined in the suit with the towns, all three of which claim that there wasn’t enough research done into the easement’s impacts on the surrounding area.
The Original Agreement Only Accounted for a Small Amount of Traffic
View this post on Instagram
The Highlands Current reports that the original terms of the easement were signed by the property’s previous owner, Richard Siskind, in 1988. It looks like the easement granted the park and utilities permission for some vehicles, pedestrians, grading, and landscaping to be done on part of the property.
Then in 2020, the new homeowner gave the state permission to have a 20-foot-wide easement in exchange for $1, which was to be turned into an unpaved recreational trail. However, a 2022 “superseding agreement” was filed, expanding the uses of the easement to include things like walking and snowshoeing on the trail, and the homeowner is asking the court to vacate it in favor of the original agreement.
According to the court documents filed in September 2026, paragraph 243 accuses the defendants of expanding the use of the land far beyond the scope of what was originally agreed to. “Specifically, Defendants seek to incorporate the Easement Area into a proposed approximately 7.5-mile linear park and public trail system that would invite large numbers of members of the general public, of all abilities, to travel upon and across the Easement Area and the burdened property.”
Easements Can Be Revoked Under Certain Circumstances
While the homeowner claims that the 2020 easement was never fully executed, there are some other circumstances that would allow someone to reverse a claim like this. According to the website for Stark & Stark, some of those reasons include the abandonment of an easement (as in, it hasn’t been used in a long time) and when the terms of an easement include an expiration date or termination clause.
Whether the homeowner is able to get a judge to agree to revoke the 2020 terms of the easement remains to be seen, but for now it seems like a lot of folks are unhappy with the latest agreement, which may work in her favor.
