Opinion
November 14, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Miller, J.).
Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed, for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this Court (see, 22 NYCRR 670.8 [c], [e]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order and judgment are affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the plaintiffs are awarded one bill of costs.
The plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on their first cause of action insofar as they established: (1) that the original parties intended that the restrictive covenant, prohibiting the use of the defendants' premises for trade or business purposes, would run with the land; (2) that the covenant touches and concerns the land; (3) that their property derived from the original grantor who imposed the covenant and whose property was benefited thereby; and (4) that the defendants derived their property from the original grantee who took the property subject to the restrictive covenant (see, Westmoreland Assn. v. West Cutter Estates, 174 A.D.2d 144; Orange Rockland Utils. v. Philwold Estates, 52 N.Y.2d 253, 262).
In light of the foregoing the Supreme Court was obligated to enforce the restrictive covenant as a matter of right. Accordingly, the doctrine of laches is inapplicable (see, Newcomb v. Congdon, 160 A.D.2d 1192; see also, 75 N.Y. Jur 2d, Limitations and Laches, § 335, at 539-540).
We have examined the defendants' remaining contentions and find that they are without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Florio, JJ., concur.