You are here: / / CAUSES OF ACTION SEEKING TO ENFORCE A ZONING ORDINANCE AND COVENANTS IN...
, ,

CAUSES OF ACTION SEEKING TO ENFORCE A ZONING ORDINANCE AND COVENANTS IN ANOTHER’S DEED PROPERLY DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Second Department, in affirming the dismissal of the causes of action, explained when a resident can bring a private action to enforce a zoning ordinance and restrictive covenants in another’s deed:

​

The Supreme Court also properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss the plaintiff’s third cause of action, which was to enjoin alleged violations of the Code of the Town of Islip and restrictive covenants and to recover damages incidental to the alleged violations, as the plaintiff lacks standing to bring such a cause of action. Generally, to maintain a private action at common law to enjoin a zoning violation, a plaintiff must establish that he or she has standing to do so by demonstrating that special damages were sustained due to the defendant’s activities. To establish special damages, it is necessary to show that there is some depreciation in the value of the premises as real property arising from the forbidden use… . The plaintiff here failed to show that there was a depreciation of the character of the immediate neighborhood, or a depreciation in the value of her premises.

Furthermore, as stated previously, the plaintiff lacks standing to enforce restrictive covenants regarding the defendants’ property. The language in the deed from the original grantor indicates that the covenants were not imposed for the benefit of the owner of neighboring land. Therefore, the plaintiff may not enforce the covenants as a third-party beneficiary … .. Moreover, these covenants were not part of a common development scheme created for the benefit of all property owners within the subject development … . Wheeler v Del Duca, 2017 NY Slip Op 05116, 2nd Dept 6-21-17

 

ZONING (CAUSES OF ACTION SEEKING TO ENFORCE A ZONING ORDINANCE AND COVENANTS IN ANOTHER’S DEED PROPERLY DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/REAL PROPERTY (CAUSES OF ACTION SEEKING TO ENFORCE A ZONING ORDINANCE AND COVENANTS IN ANOTHER’S DEED PROPERLY DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS (CAUSES OF ACTION SEEKING TO ENFORCE A ZONING ORDINANCE AND COVENANTS IN ANOTHER’S DEED PROPERLY DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/DEEDS (CAUSES OF ACTION SEEKING TO ENFORCE A ZONING ORDINANCE AND COVENANTS IN ANOTHER’S DEED PROPERLY DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)

You might also like
Defendant’s Flight Did Not Justify Police Pursuit and Entry Into Defendant’s Apartment—Evidence Properly Suppressed
THE PROOF REQUIRED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, FOR BOTH PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS, IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS, ON WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE PROVISIONS, EXPLAINED; PRIOR DECISIONS HOLDING THAT A DEFENDANT’S DENIAL OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE WAS SUFFICIENT SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (SECOND DEPT).
Complaint Did Not Sufficiently Allege Demand for Board’s Action Would Be Futile, Criteria Described
PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH AN INADEQUATELY PROTECTED HOLE IN DEFENDANT’S BUILDING WHEN HE (APPARENTLY) WAS DOING WORK ON BEHALF OF HIS EMPLOYER, APPARENTLY A TENANT IN THE BUILDING; PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER; BUT PLAINTIFF PRESENTED NO PROOF HIS EMPLOYER HAD ASSUMED THE DUTIES OF AN AGENT OF THE OWNER FOR SUPERVISION OF HIS WORK, THEREFORE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION AGAINST THE EMPLOYER WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
“Outside Influence Upon the Jury” Argument Rejected—“Weight of the Evidence” Review Required New Trial [Editor’s Note—There Appears [to Me] to Be No Difference Between What Can Be Reviewed Under the “Weight of the Evidence” Criteria, Which Need Not Be Preserved by a Motion to Dismiss, and What Can Be Reviewed Under the “Legally Sufficient Evidence” Criteria, Which Must Be Preserved by a Specific Motion to Dismiss]
THE BANK’S MOTION TO RESTORE THE 2009 FORECLOSURE ACTION WHICH HAD BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY, BUT NOT FORMALLY, DISMISSED SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE BANK HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED ITS INTENTION TO DISCONTINUE THE 2009 FORECLOSURE BUT THE MOTION TO RESTORE WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
Late Disclaimer of Coverage Invalid 
THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PERSON SERVED WAS AN AGENT OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION; CLERK’S JUDGMENT VACATED (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

PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH OPEN TRAPDOOR IN LEASED PREMISES, DOOR WAS NOT DEFECTIVE,... PROPER PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS NOT FOLLOWED, CASE...