Bach v. Grabfelder

233 A.D. 773
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 15, 1931·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. If we were to limit the non-enforcibility of the restrictions as against the defendant alone it would not be decisive of the situation disclosed by this record. Whether the restrictions upon plaintiff’s property can be enforced by owners of other lots in the tract in question should not be determined in an action seeking a judgment declaratory against such other owners in their absence. They have a right to be heard on the question of the enforcibility of the restrictions. Jurisdiction in an action for a declaratory [774]*774judgment is discretionary. (Bareham v. City of Rochester, 246 N. Y. 140, 143.) A consideration of the facts presented satisfies us that the conclusion reached by the Special Term should be upheld. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ.

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

Bach v. Grabfelder, 233 A.D. 773 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

233 A.D. 773 (Bach v. Grabfelder) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stuberfield v. Long Island City Savings & Loan Ass'n
37 Misc. 2d 811 (New York Supreme Court, 1962)
Feigen v. Green Harbour Beach Club, Inc.
25 Misc. 2d 101 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
Brechner v. Incorporated Village of Lake Success
23 Misc. 2d 159 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
Saunders v. Roland Park Co.
198 A. 269 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1938)
Utica Mutual Insurance v. Hamera
162 Misc. 169 (New York Supreme Court, 1936)