You are here: / / Setback Dimensions Drawn on Subdivision Map Not Reflected in Documents...

Setback Dimensions Drawn on Subdivision Map Not Reflected in Documents in Defendants’ Chain of Title/Setback Restrictions, Therefore, Did Not Run With the Land

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court, finding that the setback lines drawn on a subdivision map were not reflected on the documents in defendants’ chain of title and, therefore, did not run with the land:

“[T]he policy of the law is to favor free and unobstructed use of realty” … . “[A] purchaser takes with notice from the record only of incumbrances in his direct chain of title. In the absence of actual notice before or at the time of his purchase or of other exceptional circumstances, an owner of land is only bound by restrictions if they appear in some deed of record in the conveyance to himself or his direct predecessors in title” … . “A purchaser is not normally required to search outside the chain of title” … . Deed restrictions are strictly construed against those seeking to enforce them and will be enforced only where their existence has been established by clear and convincing proof … .In this case, the plaintiffs failed make a prima facie showing that the front and rear yard setback lines drawn on the subdivision map are deed restrictions that run with the land. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, there is nothing in the defendants’ chain of title which indicates that these setback lines are deed restrictions that run with the land… . Butler v Mathisson, 2014 NY Slip Op 01289, 2nd Dept 2-26-14

 

You might also like
Defendant-Employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Properly Denied—Defendant Did Not Submit Proof that Defendant’s Employee Was Not Acting Within the Scope of Employment When Employee Removed and Disseminated Photos from Plaintiff’s Cell Phone and Defendant Did Not Submit Proof Demonstrating It Did Not Know of the Employee’s Propensity for Such Conduct
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF WAS ATTEMPTING TO PUSH A HEAVY DOLLY UP A RAMP WHEN IT ROLLED BACK AND INJURED HIM (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE A MOTION TO RENEW IS NOT BASED UPON A CHANGE IN THE LAW, THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT FOR BRINGING THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT),
BECAUSE THE ALLONGE ENDORSED IN BLANK WAS NOT FIRMLY AFFIXED TO THE NOTE AS REQUIRED BY THE UCC, THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
Insurer Not Estopped from Disclaiming Coverage Four Years After the Claim—No Prejudice to Insured and Disclaimer Supported by Policy Exclusion
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, REVOKED THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT IN THIS FORECLOSURE CASE BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT SEEK THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT).
Highest and Best Use is Measure of Damages—Unconsummated Purchase Contract Is Valid Proof of Value
RECORDS SUBMITTED BY THE BANK DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Height Differential Between Concrete Slabs in Sidewalk “Trivial” As a Matter... Plaintiff’s Alleging a Deed Executed Within the Ten-Year Statute of Limitations...