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
Summary Judgment Finding Derivative Neglect Should Not Have Been Granted
HEARING OFFICER’S FAILURE TO INQUIRE INTO A WITNESS’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY REQUIRED ANNULMENT.
A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT FOR WHICH A JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED AFTER DECEDENT’S DEATH MAY NOT BE ENTERED IN DECEDENT’S NAME PURSUANT TO CPLR 5016 (d); THEREFORE THE JUDGMENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO PRIORITY IN SETTLING THE ESTATE (THIRD DEPT).
THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE WAS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, RATHER, THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN STAYED (THIRD DEPT).
THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD DID NOT PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION FOR DISQUALIFYING CLAIMANT FROM FUTURE WAGE REPLACEMENT BENEFITS, MATTER REMITTED SO THAT ASPECT OF THE PENALTY CAN BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).
REPORTER WHO INTERVIEWED A MURDER SUSPECT WAS ENTITLED TO A WRIT OF PROHIBITION PREVENTING THE ENFORCEMENT OF A SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT THE SUSPECT’S TRIAL; THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 79-H, THE NEW YORK SHIELD LAW, WHICH PROTECTS REPORTERS FROM SUBPOENAS WHEN THE REPORTER’S TESTIMONY IS NOT “CRITICAL OR NECESSARY” TO THE PEOPLE’S CASE (THIRD DEPT).
THE LENGTH OF THE SENTENCE WAS NOT PRONOUNCED; RESENTENCING IS REQUIRED (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL AFTER STEPPING ON A CHERRY TOMATO IN DEFENDANT’S STORE; CONSULT THIS DECISION FOR A DISCUSSION OF HOW A DEFENDANT CAN DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE; DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (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...