Here, the 1966 deed demonstrates that the right of first refusal was for the benefit of the original grantees only (see Martin v Seeley, 191 A.D.3d 1335, 1337). Moreover, to the extent that the surrounding circumstances demonstrate an intent that the covenant should run with the land (see Jennings Beach Assn. v Kaiser, 145 A.D.2d 607, 608), the restriction would violate the rule against perpetuities (see EPTL 9-1.1[b]; Morrison v Piper, 77 N.Y.2d at 171-174; Kozak v Porada, 154 A.D.3d at 1244; Martinsen v Camperlino, 81 A.D.3d 256, 259; cf. WBXB, LLC v Rosswaag, 216 A.D.3d 1053, 1056; Martin v Seeley, 191 A.D.3d at 1337).
The allegations in the complaint, answer and counterclaim were set forth in prior orders of the Court which ultimately resulted in a grant of partial summary judgment in defendant's favor. The affirmance of this Court's decision by the Appellate Division (WBXB, LLC v. Rosswaag, 216 A.D.3d 1053, 189 N.Y.S.3d 670 [2d Dept 2023]) also contained a factual recitation. For the purposes of clarity, the background of this dispute