Sanders v. Fenimore Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanders v. Fenimore Realty Corp.

261 A.D. 842, 24 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7721

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D. 842 (Sanders v. Fenimore Realty Corp.) 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

Sanders v. Fenimore Realty Corp., 261 A.D. 842, 24 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7721 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

— • In an action to enforce an alleged restrictive covenant concerning real property, defendant appeals from an order (a) granting plaintiff’s motion for a temporary injunction, and (b) denying defendant’s cross-motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency. Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, plaintiff’s motion denied, without costs, and defendant’s cross-motion to dismiss the complaint granted, without costs. A private garage of today is not a stable within the purview of a restrictive covenant executed in 1856. (Goldstein v. Hirsh, 108 Misc. 294; affd., sub nom. Goldstein v. Rosenberg, 191 App. Div. 492; affd., 232 N. Y. 535.) Perpall v. Gload (116 Misc. 571; affd., 203 App. Div. 871), on which plaintiff relies, in so far as it may be in conflict with the Goldstein case (supra), should not be followed. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

— • In an action to enforce an alleged restrictive covenant concerning real property, defendant appeals from an order (a) granting plaintiff’s motion for a temporary injunction, and (b) denying defendant’s cross-motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency. Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, plaintiff’s motion denied, without costs, and defendant’s cross-motion to dismiss the complaint granted, without costs. A private garage of today is not a stable within the purview of a restrictive covenant executed in 1856. (Goldstein v. Hirsh, 108 Misc. 294; affd., sub nom. Goldstein v. Rosenberg, 191 App. Div. 492; affd., 232 N. Y. 535.) Perpall v. Gload (116 Misc. 571; affd., 203 App. Div. 871), on which plaintiff relies, in so far as it may be in conflict with the Goldstein case (supra), should not be followed. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 842, 24 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanders-v-fenimore-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack