111 Bloomingdale Realty Corp. v. Town of Oyster Bay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

111 Bloomingdale Realty Corp. v. Town of Oyster Bay

53 A.D.2d 604, 383 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13275

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 1, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 53 A.D.2d 604 (111 Bloomingdale Realty Corp. v. Town of Oyster Bay) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

111 Bloomingdale Realty Corp. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 53 A.D.2d 604, 383 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13275 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to declare certain restrictive covenants void and extinguished, the defendant Town of Oyster Bay appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 2, 1975, as denied its motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. Liberally construed, the complaint states a cause of action under subdivision 2 of section 1951 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law to extinguish restrictive covenants. Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the elements of that cause of action, to wit, (a) that conditions have changed and (b) that it would be inequitable to enforce the restrictions because they do not harm defendant (the ends to be attained by the restrictions have been frustrated by the years), but do harm plaintiff (see Clintwood Manor v Adams, 29 AD2d 278, affd 24 NY2d 759). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to declare certain restrictive covenants void and extinguished, the defendant Town of Oyster Bay appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 2, 1975, as denied its motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. Liberally construed, the complaint states a cause of action under subdivision 2 of section 1951 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law to extinguish restrictive covenants. Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the elements of that cause of action, to wit, (a) that conditions have changed and (b) that it would be inequitable to enforce the restrictions because they do not harm defendant (the ends to be attained by the restrictions have been frustrated by the years), but do harm plaintiff (see Clintwood Manor v Adams, 29 AD2d 278, affd 24 NY2d 759). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 604, 383 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/111-bloomingdale-realty-corp-v-town-of-oyster-bay-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack