Zaccaro v. Congregation Tifereth Israel of Forest Hills, Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 June 1967 |
| Citation | 281 N.Y.S.2d 773,20 N.Y.2d 77,228 N.E.2d 772 |
| Parties | , 228 N.E.2d 772 Rose ZACCARO et al., Respondents, v. CONGREGATION TIFERETH ISRAEL OF FOREST HILLS, INC., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Stanley H. Lowell and Paul Shilkoff, New York City, for appellant.
Benjamin Machinist, New York City, for respondents.
Defendant congregation appeals from an order of the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, permanently enjoining it from using certain premises owned by it for any other purpose than as a dwelling house for the occupancy of a single family.
The premises in question, located on 69th Road in Forest Hills, Queens, City of New York, were purchased by the defendant in 1965, with defendant intending to use the property as a residence for its rabbi and as a synagogue. Since 1946 the premises had been used by a congregation of the Seventh Day Adventists as a chapel and as religious administration offices. The Seventh Day Adventists had been granted a certificate of occupancy by the City of New York for use of the building for such purposes.
The basis for this lawsuit, initiated by other property owners in the area only after sale of the premises to the defendant congregation, is a restriction against the erection of 'any building except a dwelling house for the use and occupancy of not more than one family' placed upon all parties' lots by restrictive covenants inserted in all deeds to lots in their subdivision by the parties' common grantor.
On this appeal defendant challenges plaintiffs' claim of standing to enforce these restrictions, raising a number of points directed at that issue, but we need not reach this question, as, even assuming plaintiffs' standing to sue on the covenants, we hold it was error as a matter of law for an injunction to issue restraining defendant from using its property in the same fashion in which it had been openly and continuously used, Without any objection by neighborhood property owners, for 18 years before defendant's purchase of it. (See Forstmann v. Joray Holding Co., 244 N.Y. 22, 29, 154 N.E. 652, 654.) While it is true that mere delay, without prejudice, will not bar the allowance of equitable relief (Weiss v. Mayflower Doughnut Corp., 1 N.Y.2d 310, 318, 152 N.Y.S.2d 471, 476, 135 N.E.2d 208, 211), where a party's delay in asserting his rights has become unconscionable and where the party against whom the alleged right is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rural Cmty. Coal., Inc. v. Vill. of Bloomingburg
...to the issue of whether equitable injunctive relief should be granted ( see e.g. Zaccaro v. Congregation Tifereth Israel of Forest Hills, 20 N.Y.2d 77, 80, 281 N.Y.S.2d 773, 228 N.E.2d 772 [1967];Bailey v. Chernoff, 45 A.D.3d 1113, 1115, 846 N.Y.S.2d 462 [2007] ). Although plaintiffs allege......
-
Durand v. Board of Co-op. Educational Services, Second Supervisory Dist., Westchester County
...excess of $122,000; therefore, plaintiffs have been guilty of laches to the detriment of defendants (Zaccaro v. Congregation Tifereth Israel, 20 N.Y.2d 77, 281 N.Y.S.2d 773, 228 N.E.2d 772). Accordingly, the motions to dismiss the complaint at the close of the plaintiffs' case and at the cl......
-
Turner v. Caesar, 3
...induced defendant to incur expense or take other measures which will now result in prejudice to him (see, Zaccaro v Congregation Tifereth Israel of Forest Hills, 20 N.Y.2d 77, 80; Delamater v Rybaltowski, 161 A.D.2d 1001). Here, the record indicates that defendant built his residence during......
-
City of New York v. Betancourt
...pattern, it may be inequitable to grant the City final judgment of possession based on the arrears (Zaccaro v. Cong. Tifereth Israel, 20 N.Y.2d 77, 80, 281 N.Y.S.2d 773, 228 N.E.2d 772; Susquehanna S.S. Co. v. Andersen & Co., 239 N.Y. 285, 292, 294, 146 N.E. 281; Eastern Shopping Centers, I......