Forest Hills Gardens Corporation v. Evan
Decision Date | 22 November 2004 |
Docket Number | 2003-06657.,2003-02812. |
Citation | 12 A.D.3d 563,2004 NY Slip Op 08655,786 N.Y.S.2d 70 |
Parties | FOREST HILLS GARDENS CORPORATION, Respondent-Appellant, v. LIOR EVAN et al., Appellants-Respondents. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to enforce a restrictive covenant (hereinafter the covenant) by compelling the defendants to remove a fence constructed on their property without the plaintiff's prior approval as required by the restrictive covenant. The plaintiff is the successor-in-interest to the declarant of the covenant and is authorized thereunder to enforce it. Covenants restricting the use of real property are enforceable "when the intention of the parties is clear and the limitation is reasonable and not offensive to public policy" (Chambers v Old Stone Hill Rd. Assoc., 1 NY3d 424, 431 [2004]). The covenant at issue here satisfied those requirements (see Forest Hills Gardens Corp. v Velonskis, 309 AD2d 732 [2003]). Thus, the plaintiff met its burden on the motion for summary judgment of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the absence of any material issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]) by submitting undisputed evidence that the fence in the defendants' front yard was constructed without its prior approval.
In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Loch Sheldrake Beach & Tennis Inc. v. Akulich
...defendant to submit evidence in admissible form showing the existence of any material issue of fact (see Forest Hills Gardens Corp. v. Evan, 12 A.D.3d 563, 564, 786 N.Y.S.2d 70 [2004] ; see generally O'Brien v. Couch, 124 A.D.3d 975, 976, 1 N.Y.S.3d 485 [2015] ). This defendant failed to do......
- Ford v. Southside Hosp.