You are here: / / SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DISMISSED THE CLAIM THAT DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE...

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DISMISSED THE CLAIM THAT DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT CONCERNING THE HEIGHT OF HOUSES BECAUSE THE TERM ‘ONE AND A HALF STORIES’ WAS AMBIGUOUS AS TO HEIGHT; HOWEVER THE CLAIMS ALLEGING VIOLATION OF SETBACK RESTRICTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court and ordering a new trial, determined defendant’s motion for a directed verdict dismissing claims that defendant had violated certain restrictive covenants when defendant’s house was constructed should not have been granted. The court noted that plaintiff did not prove defendant violated the covenant restricting the height of a house to one and a half stories. The use of the term “stories” was deemed ambiguous as a measure of height. However the proof demonstrated violations of the required setbacks and Supreme Court should not have dismissed those claims because other properties in the subdivision were in violation or because the house was already built:

… “[T]he words not more than one and one-half stories in height’ are ambiguous in scope,” and because the defendants, who were seeking to enforce the covenant, “failed to present . . . clear and convincing proof with respect to what number of feet constitutes a story in height,’ the scope of the covenant is uncertain, doubtful, or debatable,’ thus rendering it unenforceable as applied to plaintiff’s residence” … . …

Although the court determined that there was a violation of at least one of the covenants and restrictions here, it granted the motion on the ground that plaintiff could not seek equitable relief because she did not seek such relief against other property owners within the subdivision regarding their alleged violations of the same covenants and restrictions. That was error. Plaintiff is “entitled to ignore inoffensive violations of the restriction[s] without forfeiting [her] right to restrain others which [she] find[s] offensive” … . Moreover, the court’s reluctance to grant equitable relief where, as here, the house has already been built was not a valid basis for granting defendant’s motion. Defendant “proceeded with construction of the [house] with knowledge of the restrictive covenants and of plaintiff[‘s] intention to enforce them” … . Kleist v Stern, 2019 NY Slip Op 05888, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

You might also like
THE CHILD HAD LIVED WITH HIS GRANDPARENTS FOR HIS ENTIRE LIFE; THE GRANDPARENTS DEMONSTRATED EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSITATING A BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD HEARING PRIOR TO RULING ON MOTHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Defendant’s Motion to Vacate His Conviction, Supported by Evidence that (1) the People May Have Violated Their “Brady” Obligation to Inform the Defense of a Plea Deal Made In Return for Testimony and (2) a Juror May Have Had a Mental Disability, Should Not Have Been Denied Without a Hearing
INADEQUATE WAIVER OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL REQUIRED REVERSAL; PRESERVATION OF THIS ISSUE NOT NECESSARY.
Contract Between Employer and Contractor Did Not Create a Duty Owed to Employee/Instrument of Harm Doctrine Not Applicable
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OWNER/GENERAL CONTRACTOR FAILED IN THEIR NONDELEGABLE DUTY TO SHUT OFF THE ELECTRICITY IN A BUILDING UNDERGOING DEMOLITION; PLAINTIFF RECEIVED AN ELECTRIC SHOCK WHEN HE STRIPPED INSULATION FROM AN ELECTRIC CABLE; PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
FAILURE TO COMPLETELY EXPLAIN POTENTIAL SENTENCES AND THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE WRITTEN PLEA AGREEMENT AND THE COURT’S EXPLANATION INVALIDATED THE GUILTY PLEA.
DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S EMERGENCY ROOM PERSONNEL WERE UNAWARE PLAINTIFF HAD EXECUTED A “MOLST” DECLINING LIFE-SAVING TREATMENT WHEN THEY PERFORMED CHEST COMPRESSIONS WHICH REVIVED PLAINTIFF BUT FRACTURED RIBS; PLAINTIFF SUFFERED ANOTHER HEART ATTACK SEVEN HOURS LATER AND DIED; A JURY AWARDED DAMAGES FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ARTICULATE A STANDARD OF CARE OR A VIOLATION OF A STANDARD OF CARE; THE DEFENSE MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM EYE INJURY ASSOCIATED WITH USE OF A NAIL GUN PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

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

PLAINTIFF BANK WAS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER REQUIRING THE COUNTY CLERK TO RECORD... EVIDENCE WAS SEIZED DURING A WARRANTLESS PAROLE SEARCH AT A TIME WHEN DEFENDANT’S...