Krupp v. Martin-Neyrey

2024 NY Slip Op 02695

Arthur J. Krupp, et al., appellants, v. Samantha Martin-Neyrey, respondent.

No. 2021-07325, Index No. 53886/19

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

May 15, 2024

Corbally, Gartland and Rappleyea, LLP, Poughkeepsie, NY (Allan B. Rappleyea of counsel), for appellants.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P. COLLEEN D. DUFFY LINDA CHRISTOPHER CARL J LANDICINO, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, for declaratory and injunctive relief the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court Dutchess County (Hal B. Greenwald, J.), dated August 19, 2021. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, upon an order of the same court dated July 12, 2021, inter alia, granting those branches of the defendant's motion which were for summary judgment, in effect, declaring that a restrictive covenant that runs with the defendant's real property does not bar the defendant from maintaining a storage shed, alleged to be a guesthouse; an above-ground pool; a deck; a generator; and propane tanks on the defendant's real property and dismissing so much of the complaint as sought injunctive relief with respect to those structures, and denying those branches of the plaintiffs' cross-motion which were for summary judgment declaring that the restrictive covenant bars the defendant from maintaining those structures on the defendant's real property and on so much of the complaint as sought injunctive relief with respect to those structures, is, in effect, in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiffs dismissing so much of the complaint as sought declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to those structures.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof, in effect, dismissing so much of the complaint as sought declaratory relief with respect to the storage shed, alleged to be a guesthouse; the above-ground pool; the deck; the generator; and propane tanks, and adding thereto a provision declaring that the restrictive covenant that runs with the defendant's real property does not bar the defendant from maintaining those structures on the defendant's real property; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiffs commenced this action, inter alia, for declaratory and injunctive relief against the defendant, alleging, among other things, that the defendant violated a restrictive covenant that runs with certain real property in Dutchess County purchased by the defendant that is adjacent to the plaintiffs' real property. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant erected, inter alia, an alleged guesthouse, an above-ground pool, a deck, a generator, and propane tanks (hereinafter collectively the structures) on the defendant's property in violation of the restrictive covenant, which provides, in relevant part, that "[a]ny building constructed on the premises shall be used for residential purposes and shall not contain less than 2,600 square feet of living space, exclusive of garage and basement space," and that "[a] separate detached garage may be constructed to be used for purposes usually associated with a residence."

The defendant moved, inter alia, for summary judgment, in effect declaring that the restrictive covenant does not bar her from maintaining the structures on her property and dismissing so much of the complaint as sought injunctive relief with respect to the structures. In support of her motion, the defendant submitted, among other things, uncontroverted documentary evidence indicating that the alleged guesthouse was converted into a storage shed. The plaintiffs cross-moved, inter alia, for summary judgment declaring that the restrictive covenant bars the defendant from maintaining the structures on her property and on so much of the complaint as sought injunctive...