Case ID: ny_218/html/0722-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sylvanus L. Schoonmaker et al., Appellants, v. August Heckscher, Respondent.
    
      SohoonmaJcer v. Heaksoh'er, 171 App. Div. 148, affirmed.
    (Argued May 30, 1916;
    decided June 16, 1916.)
    Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the- Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 3, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at Special Term in an action to enforce the so-called Murray Hill building restriction agreement. The defendant moved for a dismissal of the complaint upon the pleadings on the ground that the defendant’s property was not -within the area covered by the alleged restrictive agreement. This motion was granted. It appears from the defendant’s an'swer that his property was conveyed previous to the execution of the alleged agreement, and in his chain of title there is no reference whatever to the agreement or to any covenants. In addi- . tion to this, by the terms of the alleged restrictive agreement defining the area to be covered, the defendant’s property is excluded, as this agreement never purported to cover lands on the westerly side of Madison avenue.
    
      Edmund L. Baylies, Walter F. Taylor and Edwin D. Bechtel for appellants.
    
      Jabish Holmes, Francis J. McBarron and P. S. Dean for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Chase, Collin, Hogan, Cardozo and Sea-bury, JJ. Dissenting: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., and Hiscock, J.