You are here: / / ACTIONS FOR TRESPASS AND ENCROACHMENT ALLEGING DAMAGE TO A PARTY WALL PROPERLY...
,

ACTIONS FOR TRESPASS AND ENCROACHMENT ALLEGING DAMAGE TO A PARTY WALL PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IN 1869 DEED DID NOT BENEFIT ANYONE OTHER THAN THE ORIGINAL GRANTEE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiffs' causes of action for trespass and encroachment properly survived summary judgment and the cause of action for enforcement of a restrictive covenant was properly dismissed. The plaintiffs alleged that construction on defendants' building encroached on and damaged a party wall. The restrictive covenant was in an 1869 deed and did not indicate it was for the benefit of anyone other than the grantee:

The motion court correctly denied the motion insofar as it sought dismissal of the causes of action for encroachment and trespass. “A party wall is for the common benefit of contiguous proprietors. Neither may subject it to a use whereby it ceases to be continuously available for enjoyment by the other. . . A wall may be carried by either owner beyond its height as first erected, provided only it is strong enough to bear the weight and strain” … . It was defendants' burden, as movants, to offer evidence establishing their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment … . This they have failed to do. Indeed, plaintiffs in opposition proffer evidence that the alterations to the party wall have undermined the structural integrity of their buildings. Plaintiffs' engineer opined that defendants failed to detail a flashing system and to adhere to industry standards, occasioning damage. He further opined that it was impossible to ascertain whether the new masonry is properly tied to the old masonry so as to provide the requisite structural stability.

The cause of action to enforce a restrictive covenant was correctly dismissed for lack of standing…  The covenant was entered into in 1869 by the original owner of one lot that included both of the subject properties and his immediate neighbor, and it contains no explicit provision that it is for the benefit of anyone other than the grantee. Mastrobattista v Borges, 2018 NY Slip Op 00039, First Depat 1-2-18

REAL PROPERTY LAW (ACTIONS FOR TRESPASS AND ENCROACHMENT ALLEGING DAMAGE TO A PARTY WALL PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IN 1869 DEED DID NOT BENEFIT ANYONE OTHER THAN THE ORIGINAL GRANTEE (FIRST DEPT))/TRESPASS  (ACTIONS FOR TRESPASS AND ENCROACHMENT ALLEGING DAMAGE TO A PARTY WALL PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IN 1869 DEED DID NOT BENEFIT ANYONE OTHER THAN THE ORIGINAL GRANTEE (FIRST DEPT))/ENCROACHMENT (ACTIONS FOR TRESPASS AND ENCROACHMENT ALLEGING DAMAGE TO A PARTY WALL PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IN 1869 DEED DID NOT BENEFIT ANYONE OTHER THAN THE ORIGINAL GRANTEE (FIRST DEPT))/DEEDS  (ACTIONS FOR TRESPASS AND ENCROACHMENT ALLEGING DAMAGE TO A PARTY WALL PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IN 1869 DEED DID NOT BENEFIT ANYONE OTHER THAN THE ORIGINAL GRANTEE (FIRST DEPT))/RESTRICTIVE COVENANT (DEEDS, ACTIONS FOR TRESPASS AND ENCROACHMENT ALLEGING DAMAGE TO A PARTY WALL PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IN 1869 DEED DID NOT BENEFIT ANYONE OTHER THAN THE ORIGINAL GRANTEE (FIRST DEPT))/PARTY WALLS (ACTIONS FOR TRESPASS AND ENCROACHMENT ALLEGING DAMAGE TO A PARTY WALL PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IN 1869 DEED DID NOT BENEFIT ANYONE OTHER THAN THE ORIGINAL GRANTEE (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS RAISED ISSUES OF FACT REQUIRING DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION.
DAMAGE TO SOIL FROM LEAD EMISSIONS AND LEAD PAINT COULD NOT BE SEPARATED, ALTHOUGH LEAD PAINT DAMAGE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE POLICY EXCLUSION, THE EXCLUSION FOR LEAD EMISSIONS CONTROLLED.
DEFENSE COUNSEL TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO HER CLIENT’S RE THE CLIENT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, MATTER REMITTED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THE MOTION WITH NEW COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT).
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PARTY IS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER IN LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTIONS EXPLAINED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A LADDER, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE OFFICER WHO SEARCHED DEFENDANT’S PERSON INTENDED TO ARREST THE DEFENDANT AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH; THEREFORE THE SEARCH WAS NOT A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST AND THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).
Court Should Have Granted an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal In a Juvenile Delinquency Proceeding
STANDING ON AN INVERTED BUCKET CONSTITUTED A “PHYSICALLY SIGNIFICANT” HEIGHT-DIFFERENTIAL FOR PURPOSES OF LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1); INJURY WHILE PREVENTING A FALL IS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY ABOUT HIS FELONY CONVICTIONS DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO A MODIFICATION OF THE COURT’S SANDOVAL RULING TO ALLOW QUESTIONING ABOUT THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE CONVICTIONS; CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST 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

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY ABOUT THE DESIGN OF THE... BECAUSE IT WAS POSSIBLE THE STATE WOULD REFUSE TO INDEMNIFY DEFENDANT DOCTORS...