U & Me Homes, LLC v. County of Suffolk

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department reversed a judgment declaring a restrictive covenant void and of no legal effect. It held that the defendants established that the covenant was intended to run with the land, was not extinguished by merger following a tax deed and redemption, and was authorized as a condition of sale, while issues under RPAPL 1951 remained for further proceedings. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for appropriate declarations and further proceedings.

Holdings

1. The appeals from the order were dismissed because the right of direct appeal terminated upon entry of the judgment, and no appeal as of right lay from the portion of the order that sua sponte made a declaration without deciding a motion made on notice. The issues presented by those portions of the order were nevertheless reviewable on the appeals from the judgment.
2. The restrictive covenant was intended to run with the land and was enforceable against subsequent purchasers because the surrounding circumstances established the parties' intent, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
3. The restrictive covenant was not extinguished by merger when Suffolk County acquired the property by tax deed and Route 58 later redeemed it.
4. The defendants established prima facie that Suffolk County was authorized to include the restrictive covenant as a condition of the public auction sale, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
5. The defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's RPAPL 1951 claim because they failed to establish prima facie that the plaintiff's alleged hardships did not outweigh the restrictive covenant's benefit to the party seeking enforcement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the restrictive covenant was intended to run with the land and therefore could be enforced against a subsequent purchaser.
2. Whether the restrictive covenant was extinguished by merger when Suffolk County acquired the property through a tax deed and Route 58 later redeemed it.
3. Whether Suffolk County was authorized to include the restrictive covenant as a condition of the public auction sale under the Code of Suffolk County.
4. Whether the defendants were entitled to summary judgment defeating the plaintiff's claim under RPAPL 1951 that the restrictive covenant was unenforceable because it provided no actual and substantial benefit and should be extinguished upon a balancing of the equities.
5. Whether the appeals from portions of the interlocutory order were properly before the Appellate Division after entry of the final judgment.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded