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
Fact that Driver’s Negligence Was Deemed “Sole Proximate Cause” of Passenger’s Injury Did Not Warrant the Dismissal of Claims Against the Other Driver Involved in the Collision
FAILURE TO TAKE TIMELY STEPS TO SETTLE THE ORDER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION RENDERED THE ACTION ABANDONED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48 (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S FAILURE TO OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT RULE REQUIRING THAT A MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE BE FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE ENTRY OF THE ORDER OF REFERENCE WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULDN’T HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE, PURSUANT TO THE TOWN CODE, FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE AREA OF THE SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A PROTRUDING BOLT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
A PARTY’S FAILURE TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT RENDERED THE MEMORANDUM IMPROPERLY RECORDED AND FAILED TO GIVE PRIORITY TO A CLAIM TO THE PROPERTY.
2 1/2 Year Delay In Correcting Location of the Slip and Fall Described in the Notice of Claim Prejudiced the Defendant/Motion for Leave to File an Amended Notice Properly Denied
DUE TO A CONTRACTOR’S ERROR, PETITIONER’S SWIMMING POOL WAS INSTALLED SIX FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, VIOLATING THE 14-FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT; THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PROPERLY DENIED THE PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND 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

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...