You are here: / / PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS OWN ADJOINING LOTS ORIGINALLY CONVEYED BY THE...
,

PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS OWN ADJOINING LOTS ORIGINALLY CONVEYED BY THE SAME GRANTOR WITH A RESTRICTION ALLOWING ONLY ONE RESIDENCE PER LOT; PLAINTIFF HAD THE REQUISITE “VERTICAL PRIVITY” TO ENFORCE THE RESTRICTION WHEN DEFENDANTS SOUGHT TO SUBDIVIDE THEIR LOT; DEFENDANTS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COVENANT WAS UNENFORCEABLE DUE TO RPAPL 1951 BECAUSE THE AREA HAD CHANGED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined: (1) plaintiff had “vertical privity” which allowed plaintiff to enforce a covenant in the deed from the original grantor of both plaintiff’s and defendants’ neighboring lots; and (2) defendants raised a triable issue of fact whether the covenant was unenforceable pursuant to RPAPL 1951 due to changes in the area. The covenant restricted each lot one residence. Defendants sough to subdivide their lot:

… [P]laintiff has the requisite vertical privity to enforce the restrictive covenants … . The plaintiff derived title to Lot 5 from the grantor, who subdivided the Lilac Farm subdivision. By deed dated June 4, 1929, the grantor burdened Lot 6, the property conveyed to the defendants’ predecessor in title, by subjecting the conveyance to the restrictive covenants in question, and which accrued to the benefit of the property retained by the grantor, including Lot 5, which was conveyed to the plaintiff’s predecessors in title by deed dated September 20, 1929. The defendants do not allege that the succession of conveyances from the grantor to the plaintiff was not continuous and lawful. Therefore, the plaintiff has the requisite vertical privity and did not need to demonstrate a common plan or scheme for the entire subdivision … . …

… [T]he defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the restrictive covenant prohibiting subdivision of the parcel is unenforceable pursuant to RPAPL 1951 due to changes in the area since the imposition of such covenant … . Shehan v Commisso, 2022 NY Slip Op 00328, Second Dept 1-19-22

 

You might also like
​ PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED TO DEFENDANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
Speculation About Cause of Fall Required Dismissal of Complaint​
JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED IT COULD CONSIDER THE ACTIONS OF COMPLAINANT’S HUSBAND IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE APPLIED IN THIS ASSAULT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
NEITHER PARTY WAS THE “PREVAILING PARTY” IN THIS DISPUTE OVER THE CARE OF THE PARTIES’ INCAPACITATED FATHER; THEREFORE NEITHER PARTY WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE PLANNING BOARD DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO WAIVE OR IGNORE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE VILLAGE ZONING CODE; THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED AND THE SITE PLAN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPROVED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE ISSUE OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE CAN BE ADDRESSED AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE IF RAISED AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S ACTION ALLEGING INADEQUATE BUILDING SECURITY WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF AN ASSAULT ON PLAINTIFF IN THE BUILDING LOBBY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ASSAULT WAS FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT).
Supreme Court Should Have Held a Hearing to Determine Whether Attorneys Were Entitled to the Fees Sought by Them—Plaintiff Had Already Paid the Attorneys Nearly the Amount the Case Ultimately Settled For—the Attorneys, Who Had Been Discharged Without Cause, Sought 40% of the Settlement Pursuant to a Contingency Agreement Which Was Entered In Anticipation of Trial

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

EVEN THOUGH PARTY DEPOSITIONS HAD NOT YET BEEN TAKEN IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT... IN THIS ELEVATOR-ACCIDENT CASE, THE BUILDING OWNERS WERE ENTITLED TO A CONDITIONAL...