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
IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION, ANY DEFICIENCIES IN PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S CERTIFICATE OF MERIT (CPLR 3012-B) CAN NOT BE THE BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ALLEGING PLAINTIFF’S LACK OF STANDING (SECOND DEPT).
Agency’s Failure to Follow Its Own Regulations Renders Determination Arbitrary and Capricious
THE PARTIES MARRIED IN 1974, STARTED DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS IN 1991, DISCONTINUED THE DIVORCE AND BEGAN LIVING TOGETHER AGAIN IN 1998, CONTINUED LIVING TOGETHER UNTIL THE INSTANT DIVORCE IN 2015; SUPREME COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP ENDED IN 1991; MATTER REMITTED FOR RECALCULATION OF THE MARITAL PROPERTY AND COUNSEL FEES (SECOND DEPT).
Adverse Possession Criteria Explained
THE CHILD SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THE DIVORCE ACTION VIOLATED THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT AND MUST BE VACATED; THE VACATUR SHOULD HAVE EXTENDED BACK TO THE DATE OF THE STIPULATION, NOT MERELY TO THE DATE OF THE RELATED MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY THAT HE DID NOT RECALL HOW OR WHERE HE SLIPPED AND FELL AND DID NOT RECALL A FIGHT OR BEING HIT WERE FATAL TO THE SLIP AND FALL AND ASSAULT CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DRIVER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, DESPITE VIDEO SHOWING PLAINTIFF DARTING INTO TRAFFIC (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE A MOTION TO RENEW IS NOT BASED UPON A CHANGE IN THE LAW, THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT FOR BRINGING THE MOTION (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...