You are here: / / COVENANT PROHIBITING CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL GARAGE DID NOT RUN WITH...

COVENANT PROHIBITING CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL GARAGE DID NOT RUN WITH THE LAND, PLAINTIFF THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO ENFORCE IT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not have standing to enforce a covenant in an old deed prohibiting the construction of a commercial garage. The covenant was deemed to run only to the first purchaser, and did not run with the land:

​

… [T]he record establishes that the restrictive covenant from the 1924 deed was not part of a common development scheme created for the benefit of subdivision property owners as concerns the plaintiff and the defendants. … At the time of the conveyance, the covenant cannot be said to have benefitted any part of the land burdened by it. … When the land was conveyed to Hudson … , at least as to the lots now owned by the plaintiff …, it was still in a single piece, and Hudson, the absolute owner of it, was free to do with it as it pleased except as against … the original covenantee … . When Hudson decided to divide the property, neither of the deeds embodied any part of the restrictive covenant, or contained any reference thereto. Hudson is the common grantor of the parties, and it sold the property without restrictions. Neither the plaintiff nor [defendant] have any different title from that which they derived through the unrestricted deeds from Hudson … . Thus, the original covenant is not enforceable as between the plaintiff and [defendant] … . Fleetwood Chateau Owners Corp. v Fleetwood Garage Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 06431, Second Dept 9-13-17

REAL PROPERTY (COVENANT PROHIBITING CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL GARAGE DID NOT RUN WITH THE LAND, PLAINTIFF THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO ENFORCE IT (SECOND DEPT))/DEEDS  (COVENANT PROHIBITING CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL GARAGE DID NOT RUN WITH THE LAND, PLAINTIFF THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO ENFORCE IT (SECOND DEPT))/COVENANTS (DEEDS, COVENANT PROHIBITING CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL GARAGE DID NOT RUN WITH THE LAND, PLAINTIFF THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO ENFORCE IT (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Change of Venue to Avoid Appearance of Impropriety Properly Granted–Plaintiff Was a Long-Time Senior Employee of Supreme Court in the County Where the Action Was Brought
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED MOTHER’S APPLICATION FOR FINDINGS ALLOWING HER CHILDREN TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS.
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED WITH AN ACTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MALPRACTICE WAS COVERED BY INSURANCE (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Comply with Service Method in Order to Show Cause Required Dismissal
Admissions In Hospital Records Which Contradicted Plaintiff’s Trial Testimony Properly Admitted/Seat Belt Defense Should Not Have Been Submitted to the Jury—Insufficient Foundation/”Missing Witness” Jury-Instruction Request Not Supported by a Showing the Testimony Would Be “Material” and “Noncumulative”
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT COMPLETED HIS SENTENCE HE IS ENTITLED TO A DETERMINATION WHETHER HE SHOULD BE ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER; THE ORDER OF PROTECTION EXCEEDED THE STATUTORY TIME LIMIT (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THE PROVISION OF AN “AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF STOCK” WHICH CALLED FOR RECOVERY OF DOUBLE ATTORNEYS FEES BY THE PREVAILING PARTY IN LITIGATION WAS AN UNENFORCEABLE PENALTY (SECOND DEPT).
Grand Larceny 4th and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property 4th, as Those Statutes Relate to Credit/Debit Cards, Require the Theft and Possession of the Physical Card Itself, Not Merely the Unauthorized Use of the Credit/Debit Card Number—Other Offenses in the Penal Law Criminalize the Unauthorized Use of Credit/Debit Card Numbers

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE SERVICE OF A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST... PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NYC BUILDING CODE PROVISION...