From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Antin v. O'Shea

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 28, 1946
270 App. Div. 1046 (N.Y. App. Div. 1946)

Summary

In Antin v O'Shea (270 App. Div. 1046), cited in Rosenberg v Centre Davis Corp. (supra), the contract provided in part that the property was sold "`[s]ubject to covenants and restrictions contained in former recorded deeds affecting said premises, provid[ed] they do not render title unmarketable.'"

Summary of this case from Caselli v. Messina

Opinion

June 28, 1946.


In an action to foreclose a vendee's lien and to recover the down payment and expenses, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the second cause of action was denied. Order reversed on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. The contract signed by plaintiff and defendant provided in part that the property was sold "Subject to covenants and restrictions contained in former recorded deeds affecting said premises, providing they do not render title unmarketable". It is not disputed that a former deed contains a covenant "that there shall not be erected upon any portion of said premises any building for the sale of intoxicating drinks or garden for the sale of ale or beer * * *." The title, therefore, was unmarketable ( Isaacs v. Schmuck, 245 N.Y. 77; Golden Development Corp. v. Weyant, 269 App. Div. 103 9, affd. 295 N.Y. 845) and, as there is no issue of fact, plaintiff's motion should have been granted.

Lewis, P.J., Hagarty, Johnston and Nolan, JJ., concur;


If the contract does not express the intention of the parties, that question may be raised by proper pleading.


Summaries of

Antin v. O'Shea

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 28, 1946
270 App. Div. 1046 (N.Y. App. Div. 1946)

In Antin v O'Shea (270 App. Div. 1046), cited in Rosenberg v Centre Davis Corp. (supra), the contract provided in part that the property was sold "`[s]ubject to covenants and restrictions contained in former recorded deeds affecting said premises, provid[ed] they do not render title unmarketable.'"

Summary of this case from Caselli v. Messina
Case details for

Antin v. O'Shea

Case Details

Full title:SAUL ANTIN, Appellant, v. REGINA O'SHEA, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 28, 1946

Citations

270 App. Div. 1046 (N.Y. App. Div. 1946)

Citing Cases

Rosenberg v. Centre Davis Corp.

The trial court held that a restrictive covenant which, among other things, prohibited the construction or…

Gilchrest-Great Neck, Inc. v. Byers

What he was required to prove was that a qualified title company would insure title free and clear of them,…