Hofmann v. Hofmann

259 A.D. 820, 19 N.Y.S.2d 130, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6861
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 1, 1940
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 259 A.D. 820 (Hofmann v. Hofmann) 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
Hofmann v. Hofmann, 259 A.D. 820, 19 N.Y.S.2d 130, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6861 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Opinion

Plaintiffs have brought twelve similar actions in equity to impress upon certain property of appellant Sunwood Homes, Inc., and in favor of neighboring property sold by said appellant to the plaintiffs, an equitable restriction limiting the use of said appellant’s property to single-family dwellings. The actions were based upon representations made to plaintiffs by appellant Sunwood Homes, Inc., and its agents, for the purpose of inducing them to purchase homes from said appellant, to the effect that no apartment building nor any building other than one-family dwellings would be built upon the portion of the property retained by the grantor. Judgment in favor of plaintiffs affirmed, with costs. (Phillips v. West Rockaway Land Co., 226 N. Y. 507.) Lazansky, P. J., Johnston and Close, JJ., concur; Adel, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and dismiss the complaint, with the following memorandum: In my opinion the doctrine of estoppel should not be extended to include the situation established by the facts in this case. The judgment results in making a new contract for the parties which provides for a general scheme of improvement or development pf the real property but which the grantees in the respective deeds [821]*821cannot enforce against each other. Carswell, J., concurs with Adel, J. [172 Misc. 378.]

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

Related

M. N. S. Brandell, Inc. v. Roosevelt Nassau Operating Corp.
42 A.D.2d 708 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1973)
Franklin v. Rumsey Realty Corp.
32 Misc. 2d 57 (New York Supreme Court, 1961)
Feigen v. Green Harbour Beach Club, Inc.
25 Misc. 2d 101 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
CIVIC ASS'N AT ROSLYN COUNTRY CLUB, INC. v. Levitt & Sons, Inc.
165 N.E.2d 206 (New York Court of Appeals, 1960)
Lemkin v. Gulde
16 Misc. 2d 1003 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
Berlin v. Homer Harman, Inc.
1 A.D.2d 847 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1956)
Wilkinson v. Nassau Shores, Inc.
1 Misc. 2d 917 (New York Supreme Court, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
259 A.D. 820, 19 N.Y.S.2d 130, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hofmann-v-hofmann-nyappdiv-1940.