Zinnia Corp. v. Castle Village Owners Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zinnia Corp. v. Castle Village Owners Corp.

182 A.D.2d 510

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

DecidedApril 16, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 182 A.D.2d 510 (Zinnia Corp. v. Castle Village Owners 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

Zinnia Corp. v. Castle Village Owners Corp., 182 A.D.2d 510 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered December 14, 1990, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that enforcement of the covenants, which, inter alia, restrict the use of its property to the erection of a single-family dwelling, has rendered the property valueless, or that the burden should otherwise be lifted. Further, as there do not appear to have ever been any single-family dwellings in the immediate neighborhood (at least since the first restrictive covenant was created), it does not appear that there are "changed conditions” within the meaning of RPAPL 1951 (1) warranting judgment in plaintiff’s favor. We have considered the remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered December 14, 1990, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that enforcement of the covenants, which, inter alia, restrict the use of its property to the erection of a single-family dwelling, has rendered the property valueless, or that the burden should otherwise be lifted. Further, as there do not appear to have ever been any single-family dwellings in the immediate neighborhood (at least since the first restrictive covenant was created), it does not appear that there are "changed conditions” within the meaning of RPAPL 1951 (1) warranting judgment in plaintiff’s favor. We have considered the remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zinnia-corp-v-castle-village-owners-corp-nyappdiv-1992.