Dushin v. Jacobowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dushin v. Jacobowitz

267 A.D.2d 347, 699 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13134

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 347 (Dushin v. Jacobowitz) 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

Dushin v. Jacobowitz, 267 A.D.2d 347, 699 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13134 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to enforce a restrictive covenant in a deed, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Williams, J.H.O.), dated June 25, 1998, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendants and against him, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the restrictive covenant encumbering the defendants’ property is ambiguous. When a restrictive covenant is ambiguous, public policy favors the free and unobstructed use of the property, and the covenant cannot be enforced (see, Bear Mtn. Books v Woodbury Common Partners, 232 AD2d 595; see also, Freedman v Kittle, 262 AD2d 909).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Joy, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to enforce a restrictive covenant in a deed, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Williams, J.H.O.), dated June 25, 1998, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendants and against him, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the restrictive covenant encumbering the defendants’ property is ambiguous. When a restrictive covenant is ambiguous, public policy favors the free and unobstructed use of the property, and the covenant cannot be enforced (see, Bear Mtn. Books v Woodbury Common Partners, 232 AD2d 595; see also, Freedman v Kittle, 262 AD2d 909).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Joy, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 347, 699 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dushin-v-jacobowitz-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack