You are here: / / COVENANT TO BUILD A WALKWAY LINKING PARTS OF A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY RAN...
, ,

COVENANT TO BUILD A WALKWAY LINKING PARTS OF A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY RAN WITH THE LAND AND WAS THEREFORE ENFORCEABLE BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AGAINST A SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the plaintiff homeowners association (HOA) was entitled to enforce an agreement made with the prior owners of the residential community to construct a walkway linking the newly constructed area to the existing areas of the community. The walkway covenant was deemed to run with the land:

As stated by the Court of Appeals, “[i]n Neponsit [Neponsit Prop. Owners’ Assn. v Emigrant Indus. Sav. Bank, 278 NY 248] we articulated three conditions . . . that must be met in order for a covenant to run with the land: (1) it must appear that grantor and grantee intended that the covenant should run with the land; (2) it must appear that the covenant is one touching or concerning the land with which it runs; [and] (3) it must appear that there is privity of estate between the promisee or party claiming the benefit of the covenant and the right to enforce it, and the promisor or party who rests under the burden of the covenant” … . …

The contract entered into in 2000, and the 2002 Amendment, as well as the circumstances of the transaction, demonstrate that the grantor and grantee intended that the walkway covenant should run with the land, thus satisfying the first Neponsit condition … . Indeed, the walkway covenant was expressly deemed an “inducement” for the HOA to sell the property … . …

The second Neponsit condition, that the walkway covenant touches and concerns the land, is easily met here, since the walkway covenant requires construction of a walkway linking the property with the Bay Street Landing community, and construction of common amenities. Thus, it “directly affects the uses to which the land may be put and substantially affects its value” … .

The third Neponsit condition is satisfied by the undisputed facts establishing the requisite privity  … . Bay St. Landing Homeowners Assn., Inc. v Meadow Partners, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 01384, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

You might also like
BOTH BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT WERE PLED, QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE GONE TO THE JURY.
PLAINTIFF’S CAUSES OF ACTION FOR CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE AND HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP OF THE CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE PETITIONER IS NOT RELATED TO THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING ANY NON-LAWYER FROM ATTENDING PLAINTIFF’S PHYSICAL EXAMINATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED.
DISTRIBUTOR’S AND SELLER’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENT DESIGN ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN ACTIONS CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY AND THE DANGER WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SECOND DEPT).
Default for Failure to File Note of Issue Within 90 Days of Demand Properly Excused
LOCK BOX ON THE OUTSIDE OF A BUILDING ON WHICH PLAINTIFF STRUCK HIS HEAD WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO PRESERVE VIDEO OF UNDERLYING INCIDENT DID NOT WARRANT STRIKING THE ANSWER.

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

BANK’S FAILURE TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE WHICH MET THE CRITERIA OF THE BUSINESS... PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, ALTHOUGH...