Katz v. DePaola

• Decision Date: 28 December 2022
• Docket Number: 2020–01930,Index No. 37264/19
• Citation: 211 A.D.3d 1020,181 N.Y.S.3d 593
• Parties: Lauren A. KATZ, appellant, v. Joseph DEPAOLA III, respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

211 A.D.3d 1020
181 N.Y.S.3d 593

Lauren A. KATZ, appellant,
v.
Joseph DEPAOLA III, respondent.

2020–01930
Index No. 37264/19

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—November 14, 2022
December 28, 2022

181 N.Y.S.3d 594

Douglas M. Chertok, New York, NY, for appellant.

Roger, Habas & Eisen, P.C., Orangeburg, NY (Patricia E. Habas of counsel), for respondent.

FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P., WILLIAM G. FORD, BARRY E. WARHIT, JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

211 A.D.3d 1020

In an action, inter alia, for declaratory and injunctive relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Thomas P. Zugibe, J.), dated February 7, 2020. The order denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and granted the defendant's cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant precluding the defendant from building a second garage on premises which abuts the premises of the plaintiff. The plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction precluding the defendant from commencing construction on the second garage and the defendant cross-moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff lacked standing to enforce the restrictive covenant. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion and granted the defendant's cross motion. The plaintiff appeals.

"In deciding a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint to be

211 A.D.3d 1021

true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Maruca v. DiGesu, 207 A.D.3d 713, 170 N.Y.S.3d 894 ; see

181 N.Y.S.3d 595

MJK Bldg. Corp. v. Fayland Realty, Inc., 181 A.D.3d 860, 861, 122 N.Y.S.3d 67 ; Leon...