From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Greek Peak, Inc. v. Grodner

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 3, 1990
75 N.Y.2d 981 (N.Y. 1990)

Opinion

Decided May 3, 1990

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, Irad S. Ingraham, J.

Frank R. Monfredo for appellants.

John Alden Stevens for respondents.


On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated in the memorandum of the Appellate Division ( 155 A.D.2d 827). We add only that a party seeking to enforce a restriction on land use must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the scope, as well as the existence, of the restriction (see, Willow Tex v Dimacopoulos, 68 N.Y.2d 963; Huggins v Castle Estates, 36 N.Y.2d 427; Premium Point Park Assn. v Polar Bar, 306 N.Y. 507). Plaintiffs failed to do so in this case.

Concur: Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA.


Summaries of

Greek Peak, Inc. v. Grodner

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 3, 1990
75 N.Y.2d 981 (N.Y. 1990)
Case details for

Greek Peak, Inc. v. Grodner

Case Details

Full title:GREEK PEAK, INC., et al., Appellants, v. BRUCE M. GRODNER et al.…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: May 3, 1990

Citations

75 N.Y.2d 981 (N.Y. 1990)
556 N.Y.S.2d 509
555 N.E.2d 906

Citing Cases

Ludwig v. Chautauqua Shores Impr. A.

We conclude that defendants' interpretation of the restrictive covenant is not supported by clear and…

Wheeler v. Del Duca

Further, as to the allegations in the third cause of action that the defendants are in violation of the…