One & Three South William Street Bldg. Corp. v. Gardens Corp.

Decision Date28 February 1933
Citation261 N.Y. 575,185 N.E. 744
PartiesONE AND THREE SOUTH WILLIAM STREET BUILDING CORPORATION, Respondent, v. GARDENS CORPORATION et al., Appellants.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from a judgment, entered December 19, 1931, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (232 App. Div. 58,243 N. Y. S. 743) reversing on the law and facts a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term and directing judgment in favor of plaintiff upon new findings. The action was brought by the owner of premises known as block 12 in Forest Hills Gardens, Queens county, to obtain a declaratory judgment determining that it had the right to erect an apartment house on such premises, and enjoining the defendants from interfering with the erection of such a building. The Sage Foundation Homes Company, in June, 1911, owned in fee a tract of about 140 acres of land at Forest Hills, of which block 12 is a part, and undertook to develop and sell the tract subject to certain restrictions set forth in instruments, each of which was called a declaration of restrictions, which were recorded in the county clerk's office of Queens county. Every parcel of property sold was subject to the declaration of restrictions by express provision in all deeds. Paragraph fourth of the original declaration limited specified portions of the tract, including block 12, to private dwellings for not more than two families. The third declaration filed by the developers, dated April 18, 1913, contained the following clause:

‘Fourteenth. Any of the restrictions, conditions, covenants, charges and agreements herein contained (except restrictions as to general nuisances) * * * may be annulled, waived, changed or modified by the Homes Company as to any property owned by it, and, with the consent of the then owner thereof, as to any property sold.'

On January 1, 1923, the Sage Foundation Homes Company, in a three-cornered agreement with the defendant Gardens Corporation and another corporation, made a partial assignment of its powers and rights under the declaration, expressly excepting, however, from the assignment and reserving to itself the right to modify the restrictions on several parcels, including block 12, so as to permit the erection of apartments. By a deed dated January 15, 1924, to certain grantees of all but a small corner of the block, and by an agreement with plaintiff da...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Goldberg v. Paul
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • July 18, 1958
    ... ... properties, and goes all the way to the street, i. e., Sherwood Lane ...          For ... At least three were frontier-type fences. On Sherwood Lane, the ... 173, 176; Vogeler v. Alwyn Improvement Corp., 1928, 247 N.Y. 131, 135, 159 N.E. 886, 887; ... 811, 53 N.E.2d 574; One and Three South William St. Bldg. Corp. v. Gardens Corp., 1931, ... ...
  • Baldwinsville Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Burns Farms, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • June 29, 1957
    ... ... in the complaint, having a frontage on the south side of Route 104 of 110.87 feet and a maximum ... Rose v. Jasima Realty Corp., 218 App.Div. 646, 219 N.Y.S. 222; One and Three South William Street Building Corporation v. Gardens ... ...
  • One & Three South William Street Bldg. Corp. v. Gardens Corp.
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 15, 1933
  • Forest Hills Gardens Corporation v. 150 Greenway Terrace, LLC, 2005-06428.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 27, 2007
    ...supra). Contrary to the defendant's contention, One & Three S. William St. Bldg. Corp. v Gardens Corp. (232 App Div 58 [1931], affd 261 NY 575 [1933]), only upheld the modification of the restrictive covenant to permit the subject apartment building to be built in excess of a two-family dwe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT