Nature Conservancy v. Congel
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York
689 N.Y.S.2d 317 (1999)
- Written by Rebecca Green, JD
Facts
The Eisenbergs and the Danas (plaintiffs) own property adjacent to a rural area known as the Buffer Lands. The Buffer Lands were owned by Allied Corporation (Allied) as part of a quarry. The Buffer Lands separated the plaintiffs’ residential property from the active quarry operations. In 1986, Allied sold the quarry property to General Crushed Stone Company (Crushed Stone), which subsequently became Milestone Materials (Milestone) (defendant). The deed from Allied to Crushed Stone contained a restrictive covenant that required the Buffer Lands to be kept in their natural state. The restrictive covenant ran with the land and was binding on Crushed Stone and its successors. The covenant stated that it was for the benefit of adjacent property owners and was enforceable by the Nature Conservancy (plaintiff). In 1997, Congel (defendant) purchased part of the Buffer Lands from Milestone. The deed to Congel said that it was subject to all other matters of record. However, Congel intended to develop the property as a personal residence and erect a fence. The plaintiffs sued to enforce the restrictive covenant. The trial court held that the plaintiffs could not enforce the restrictive covenant because there was no privity between the plaintiffs and the original grantors of the covenant. The plaintiffs appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Callahan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.