You are here: / / COVENANT PROHIBITING CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL GARAGE DID NOT RUN WITH...

COVENANT PROHIBITING CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL GARAGE DID NOT RUN WITH THE LAND, PLAINTIFF THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO ENFORCE IT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not have standing to enforce a covenant in an old deed prohibiting the construction of a commercial garage. The covenant was deemed to run only to the first purchaser, and did not run with the land:

​

… [T]he record establishes that the restrictive covenant from the 1924 deed was not part of a common development scheme created for the benefit of subdivision property owners as concerns the plaintiff and the defendants. … At the time of the conveyance, the covenant cannot be said to have benefitted any part of the land burdened by it. … When the land was conveyed to Hudson … , at least as to the lots now owned by the plaintiff …, it was still in a single piece, and Hudson, the absolute owner of it, was free to do with it as it pleased except as against … the original covenantee … . When Hudson decided to divide the property, neither of the deeds embodied any part of the restrictive covenant, or contained any reference thereto. Hudson is the common grantor of the parties, and it sold the property without restrictions. Neither the plaintiff nor [defendant] have any different title from that which they derived through the unrestricted deeds from Hudson … . Thus, the original covenant is not enforceable as between the plaintiff and [defendant] … . Fleetwood Chateau Owners Corp. v Fleetwood Garage Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 06431, Second Dept 9-13-17

REAL PROPERTY (COVENANT PROHIBITING CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL GARAGE DID NOT RUN WITH THE LAND, PLAINTIFF THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO ENFORCE IT (SECOND DEPT))/DEEDS  (COVENANT PROHIBITING CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL GARAGE DID NOT RUN WITH THE LAND, PLAINTIFF THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO ENFORCE IT (SECOND DEPT))/COVENANTS (DEEDS, COVENANT PROHIBITING CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL GARAGE DID NOT RUN WITH THE LAND, PLAINTIFF THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO ENFORCE IT (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE DOCTORS WHO TREATED PLAINTIFF IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM WERE NOT EMPLOYED BY THE HOSPITAL, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THEY HAD APPARENT OR OSTENSIBLE AGENCY RENDERING THE HOSPITAL VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ANY MALPRACTICE COMMITTED BY THEM (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ALLOW THE EX PARTE INTERVIEW OF THE NONPARTY TREATING PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S EXPLANATION OF THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Civil Versus Criminal Contempt Explained in Context of Imposition of Fines or Monetary Penalties
Question of Fact Raised About Whether Snow-Removal Contractor Created or Exacerbated the Dangerous Condition
THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE IN THE PROCEDURE USED WHEN PLAINTIFF DONATED BLOOD SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT NO DOCTOR WAS INVOLVED IN THE PROCEDURE; PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE A CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3012-a WAS DUE TO THE GOOD FAITH BELIEF THE ACTION SOUNDED IN COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT AFFORDING PLAINTIFF THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE A CERTIFICATE OF MERIT (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER DEMONSTRATED A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO TIMELY FILE AND SERVE HIS OPPOSITION PAPERS AND DEMONSTRATED A POTENTIALLY MERITORIOUS CAUSE OF ACTION; SUPREME COURT HAD REFUSED TO CONSIDER THE OPPOSITION PAPERS BEFORE ISSUING ITS ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION; THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
County Did Not Demonstrate Its Entitlement to Qualified Immunity Re: Obstructed Intersection
COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE WHICH EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT SURGEON FROM PRACTICING MEDICINE IN METROPOLITAN NEW YORK WAS INVALIDATED, ARGUMENT FOR PARTIAL ENFORCEMENT REJECTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (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

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE SERVICE OF A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST... PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NYC BUILDING CODE PROVISION...