Bulletin: NY000256

Earlier this week the Shinnecock Nation (the ?Nation?) filed suit in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the State of New York, the County of Suffolk, the Town of Southampton and others, seeking redress for being ?dispossessed? of a reported 3600 acres of property located in the Town of Southampton, Suffolk County . According to the filed complaint, the Nation has rights to the subject property pursuant to a lease for a term of 1,000 years executed in 1703 between the Nation and the Town of Southampton . The complaint alleges that the State of New York, in 1859, authorized the conveyance of the interest of the Nation in a portion of the land covered by the lease, back to the Town of Southampton and that said conveyance was documented by a petition which contained signatures of Shinnecock tribal members that were either forged or fraudulently obtained. Further, the complaint states that any action taken by the State of New York and/or the Town of Southampton to reacquire land covered by the 1709 lease was in violation of the federal Indian Non Intercourse Act of 1790 which essentially prohibits acquisition of land from Indian nations or tribes without federal authority for such acquisition.

The affected area is, according to the complaint, is all that portion of the Town of Southampton bounded by the Shinnecock Canal on the west and the by the head of Heady Creek at the intersection of East Gate Road and Montauk Highway (at its southern end) to Bullhead Bay (at is northern end) on the east.

The complaint seeks (in addition to damages) a declaration that the plaintiff has possessory rights to the subject land that were never lawfully terminated as well as ejection of the defendants from and restoration of the possession of the Nation in and to said land.

That is what the filed complaint says.

What has been reported in local media is that the ultimate goal of the plaintiff is formal recognition from the federal government as an Indian Nation which in turn will enable the plaintiff to effectively negotiate for the right to build, own and operate a casino or gaming facility either on land that it already owns or subsequently acquires. Indeed, newspaper accounts report that the plaintiff is receiving financial assistance in this action from an out of state entity backed by casino owners.

As for local and state government, both have vowed to contest the action and protect the interests of homeowners and taxpayers in the affected areas. In addition, indications are the plaintiff does not intend to evict homeowners.

As a result, any title report for properties which as of this date are improved by one to four family residences in the area affected by this action must contain exception NAAX03 STIC a copy of which is attached and which may also be found online at http://www.vuwriter.com/vuexceptions.jsp?displaykey=SE00004857 . Any property not improved as described above must contain the first sentence only of that exception. Inclusion of the affirmative insurance portion of said exception for those properties will be considered on a case by case basis.