Brown v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. Williams

3 A.D.2d 939, 163 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5302

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

DecidedMay 27, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.2d 939 (Brown v. Williams) 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

Brown v. Williams, 3 A.D.2d 939, 163 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5302 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to enforce alleged restrictive covenants limiting the use of respondent’s property to residential purposes, the appeal is from a judgment siamlgging the complaint. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. In our [940]*940opinion, the court was not precluded from enforcing the alleged restrictive covenants by the proof as to laches (Todd v. North Ave. Holding Corp., 121 Mise. 301, 307, affd. 208 App. Div. 854; Weiss v. Mayflower Doughnut Corp., 1 if T 2d 310, 318, 320-321). The appellants were not seeking to enforce a barren right (cf. Forstmann v. Joray Holding Co., 244 N. Y. 22, revg. 216 App. Div. 135; see opinion at pp. 140-142 of 216 App. Div.. 135). Nor were they precluded from enforcing the covenants by the proof as to the change in the neighborhood. Viewed in its structural aspect and use, the immediate neighborhood was not undesirable for residential use (Empire Blvd. Bldrs. v. Spohn, 235 App. Div. 497; Pagensteeher v. Carlson, 146 App. Div. 738, 740). Nevertheless, the alleged covenants are not enforeible by appellants or other adjoining property owners (Rouss v. Bardwil, 255 App. Div. 858, affd. 280 N. Y. 737; Brighton by the Sea v. Rivkin, 201 App. Div. 726; Hew Gardens Corp. v. Ciro’s Plaza, 261 App. Div. 576). Present—Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldoek, Murphy, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ. [4 Misc 2d 312.]

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

— In an action to enforce alleged restrictive covenants limiting the use of respondent’s property to residential purposes, the appeal is from a judgment siamlgging the complaint. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. In our [940]*940opinion, the court was not precluded from enforcing the alleged restrictive covenants by the proof as to laches (Todd v. North Ave. Holding Corp., 121 Mise. 301, 307, affd. 208 App. Div. 854; Weiss v. Mayflower Doughnut Corp., 1 if T 2d 310, 318, 320-321). The appellants were not seeking to enforce a barren right (cf. Forstmann v. Joray Holding Co., 244 N. Y. 22, revg. 216 App. Div. 135; see opinion at pp. 140-142 of 216 App. Div.. 135). Nor were they precluded from enforcing the covenants by the proof as to the change in the neighborhood. Viewed in its structural aspect and use, the immediate neighborhood was not undesirable for residential use (Empire Blvd. Bldrs. v. Spohn, 235 App. Div. 497; Pagensteeher v. Carlson, 146 App. Div. 738, 740). Nevertheless, the alleged covenants are not enforeible by appellants or other adjoining property owners (Rouss v. Bardwil, 255 App. Div. 858, affd. 280 N. Y. 737; Brighton by the Sea v. Rivkin, 201 App. Div. 726; Hew Gardens Corp. v. Ciro’s Plaza, 261 App. Div. 576). Present—Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldoek, Murphy, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ. [4 Misc 2d 312.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 939, 163 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-williams-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack