From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Turner v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 16, 1999
264 A.D.2d 443 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

August 16, 1999.

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment in the action ( see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment ( see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the benefit of the restrictive covenant was not intended to run with the land ( see, Westmoreland Assn. v. West Cutter Estates, 174 A.D.2d 144). Instead, we are satisfied that the benefit was personal to the grantor since he failed to impose the restrictions at issue on any other conveyance ( see, Pulitzer v. Campbell, 146 Misc. 700), and subsequently cancelled the restrictions when he conveyed the last remaining portion of his retained land to the defendants ( see, Graham v. Beermunder, 93 A.D.2d 254).

Joy, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Turner v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 16, 1999
264 A.D.2d 443 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Turner v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:HENRY R. TURNER et al., Appellants, v. MARK A. WILLIAMS et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Aug 16, 1999

Citations

264 A.D.2d 443 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
694 N.Y.S.2d 693

Citing Cases

Forest v. Richards

operty the words "without the consent in writing of Forest Close Association, Inc., having been first had and…