You are here: / / OWNERS OF A PARCEL OF LAND WHICH ADJOINS A PARCEL RESTRICTED BY A COVENANT...

OWNERS OF A PARCEL OF LAND WHICH ADJOINS A PARCEL RESTRICTED BY A COVENANT TO REMAIN FOREVER WILD DO NOT HAVE STANDING TO ENFORCE THE COVENANT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that the plaintiffs, who own land (parcel A) which adjoins land owned by defendant (parcel B), did not have standing to enforce the “forever wild” covenant in the deed to parcel B:

The standing issue requires that we determine whether the forever wild restriction is personal or runs with the land … . In making that determination, “we are guided by the general principles that because the law favors free and unencumbered use of real property, covenants purporting to restrict such use are strictly construed and restraints will be enforced only when their existence has been established by clear and convincing proof by the owner of the dominant estate” … . “One of the elements of a restrictive covenant that runs with the land is that the 'parties [to the conveyance that created the covenant] intended its burden to attach to the servient parcel and its benefit to run with the dominant estate'” … .

Although there is evidence that the parties intended that the burden of the forever wild restriction run with parcel B, the record is bereft of evidence suggesting they intended that parcel A benefit from the restriction. …

… [T]he forever wild restriction does not fall within the category of restrictive covenants that is recognized as being enforceable by an owner of a parcel that derives from a common grantor. In that regard, covenants that are entered into to implement a general, or common, scheme for the improvement or development of real property are enforceable by any grantee … . … Here, there is no scheme of development or covenant that is common to all three parcels. Gorman v Despart, 2018 NY Slip Op 05795, Third Dept 8-16-18

REAL PROPERTY LAW (OWNERS OF A PARCEL OF LAND WHICH ADJOINS A PARCEL RESTRICTED BY A COVENANT TO REMAIN FOREVER WILD DO NOT HAVE STANDING TO ENFORCE THE COVENANT (THIRD DEPT))/DEEDS (OWNERS OF A PARCEL OF LAND WHICH ADJOINS A PARCEL RESTRICTED BY A COVENANT TO REMAIN FOREVER WILD DO NOT HAVE STANDING TO ENFORCE THE COVENANT (THIRD DEPT))/COVENANTS (DEEDS, FOREVER WILD, OWNERS OF A PARCEL OF LAND WHICH ADJOINS A PARCEL RESTRICTED BY A COVENANT TO REMAIN FOREVER WILD DO NOT HAVE STANDING TO ENFORCE THE COVENANT (THIRD DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (DEEDS, COVENANTS, FOREVER WILD, OWNERS OF A PARCEL OF LAND WHICH ADJOINS A PARCEL RESTRICTED BY A COVENANT TO REMAIN FOREVER WILD DO NOT HAVE STANDING TO ENFORCE THE COVENANT (THIRD DEPT))/FOREVER WILD (DEEDS, COVENANTS, OWNERS OF A PARCEL OF LAND WHICH ADJOINS A PARCEL RESTRICTED BY A COVENANT TO REMAIN FOREVER WILD DO NOT HAVE STANDING TO ENFORCE THE COVENANT (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
Robbery Petition Jurisdictionally Defective—No Nonhearsay Identification of Respondent As the Perpetrator
THE RECORD DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD TOOK THE REQUIRED “HARD LOOK” AT THE EFFECTS OF THE EMISSION OF HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS [HAPS] FROM THE PROPOSED “BIOSOLIDS REMEDIATION AND FERTILIZER PROCESSING FACILITY;” THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS THEREFORE DEEMED ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (THIRD DEPT). ​
Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine Re: Shard of Wood Ingested by Plaintiff Allowed Case to Survive Summary Judgment
Real Property Purchased by Husband Prior to the Marriage Cannot Be Transformed Into Marital Property, Despite’s Wife’s Contribution of Her Own Funds ($30,000) to the Purchase/Wife Entitled to Equitable Distribution of the Appreciation of the Property After Marriage But No Proof On that Topic Was Offered Here/Wife Entitled to Recoup Mortgage Payments Made by Her
ALTHOUGH PETITIONER’S USING HIS CELL PHONE WHILE ON DUTY TO SEND EXPLICIT MESSAGES VIOLATED THE EMPLOYEE’S MANUAL AND WARRANTED PUNISHMENT, TERMINATION WAS TOO SEVERE A PENALTY (THIRD DEPT).
NOXIOUS ODORS FROM A LANDFILL DID NOT SUPPORT THE PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
ARGUMENT THAT THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FOR THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE DEFENDANT WAS NOT RAISED BELOW AND COULD NOT BE DECIDED WITHOUT ADDITIONAL FACTS DEVELOPED ON REMITTAL, THE RECORD ON APPEAL THEREFORE WILL NOT ALLOW REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT WAS NOT ‘DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON ALLEGATIONS IN PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT (THIRD 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

BUSINESS PURSUITS EXCLUSION IN THE HOMEOWNER’S INSURANCE POLICY DID NOT... ORDER FOLLOWING GRANT OF A MOTION TO REARGUE IS APPEALABLE, APPEAL HEARD EVEN...