Cummins v. Colgate Properties Corp.
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Citation | Cummins v. Colgate Properties Corp., 153 N.Y.S.2d 608, 2 A.D.2d 749 (N.Y. App. Div. 1956) |
| Decision Date | 02 July 1956 |
| Parties | Faith CUMMINS, Respondent, v. COLGATE PROPERTIES CORP., Anna Chieco, Appellants, and Others, Defendants. |
Jay P. Belserene, New Rochelle, for appellant Chieco.
Thomas N. Fasso, New Rochelle, on the brief.
John J. Boyle, New York City, for appellant Colgate.
John C. O'Malley, New York City, on the brief.
Bernard Margolis, New York City, for respondent.
In an action to enjoin violation of restrictive covenants and for other relief, defendants Colgate Properties Corp. and Chieco appeal from a judgment, entered after trial, in favor of plaintiff and against said defendants and from the resettled judgment. Resettled judgment 2 Misc.2d 301, 153 N.Y.S.2d 321, unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Appeal from original judgment dismissed, without costs. The original judgment was...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Graham v. Beermunder
...N.Y.2d 243, 246, 251 N.Y.S.2d 1, 200 N.E.2d 192; Cummins v. Colgate Prop. Corp., 2 Misc.2d 301, 303-304, 153 N.Y.S.2d 321, affd. 2 A.D.2d 749, 153 N.Y.S.2d 608; cf. Port Chester Elect. Co. v. Atlas, 40 N.Y.2d 652, 389 N.Y.S.2d 327, 357 N.E.2d 983). However, equity may provide plaintiffs a r......
-
Guthrie v. Clark
...all lots in the subdivision. (Cummins v. Colgate Properties Corp., 2 Misc.2d 301, 304, 153 N.Y.S.2d 321, 324, Eager, J., affd. 2 A.D.2d 749, 153 N.Y.S.2d 608, lv. to app. den. 2 N.Y.2d 707, 163 N.Y.S.2d XC, 137 N.E.2d 458; Korn v. Campbell, 192 N.Y. 490, 495, 85 N.E. 687, 689, 37 L.R.A., N.......
-
Richmond v. Pennscott Builders, Inc.
...20 A.D.2d 277, 281, 247 N.Y.S.2d 143, 146; Cummins v. Colgate Properties Corp., 2 Misc.2d 301, 305, 153 N.Y.S.2d 321, 325, affd. 2 A.D.2d 749, 153 N.Y.S.2d 608.) The three blocks on the westerly side of 116th Street south of Metropolitan Avenue to Curzon Place are improved by substantial on......
-
Lakeshore Club, Inc. v. Country Club Properties, Inc.
...beneficiaries under the agreement. See Cummins v. Colgate Properties Corp., 2 Misc.2d 301, 153 N.Y.S.2d 321, 324, affirmed 2 A.D.2d 749, 153 N.Y.S.2d 608. Here, it appears that the assigns and grantees of Perlman were not intended to be made third-party beneficiaries of the restrictive cove......