green
Positive treatment
5.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Figura v. North Country Janitorial, Inc.
Co. v Mowery Constr., Inc., 96 AD3d 1218 , 1219 [2012] [citation omitted]; see Dever v DeVito, 84 AD3d 1539, 1541 [2011], lv dismissed 18 NY3d 864 [2012]; Architectural Bldrs. v Pollard, 267 AD2d 704, 705 [1999]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jasinski v. Hudson Pointe Homeowners Ass'n
Further, “the law favors Tree and unencumbered use of real property, and covenants restricting use are strictly construed against those seeking to enforce them’ ” (Van Schaick v Trustees of Union Coll., 285 AD2d 859, 860 [2001], Iv denied 97 NY2d 607 [2001], quoting Witter v Taggart, 78 NY2d 234, 237 [1991]; accord Dever v DeVito, 84 AD3d 1539, 1542 [2011], Iv dismissed 18 NY3d 864 [2012]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ford v. Rifenburg
While restrictive covenants “must be construed as they read and not be given a construction extending beyond the literal meaning of their terms” (Buffalo Academy of Sacred Heart v Boehm Bros., 267 NY 242, 249 [1935]; see Dever v DeVito, 84 AD3d 1539, 1542-1543 [2011], lv dismissed 18 NY3d 864 [2012]), the restriction here clearly precludes, among other things, docks built with sides.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ernie Otto Corp. v. Inland Southeast Thompson Monticello
Plaintiff appeals. 2 Supreme Court did not err in awarding defendant summary judgment. “[TJhe law favors Tree and unencumbered use of real property, and covenants restricting use are strictly construed against those seeking to enforce them’ ” (Van Schaick v Trustees of Union Coll., 285 AD2d 859, 860 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 607 [2001], quoting Witter v Taggart, 78 NY2d 234, 237 [1991]; accord Dever v DeVito, 84 AD3d 1539, 1542 [2011], lv dismissed 18 NY3d 864 [2012]; see Bear Mtn.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Holst v. Liberatore
Moreover, the original complaint provided the necessary evidentiary support for the motion (see McFarland, 2 AD3d at 1300; see also Dever v DeVito, 84 AD3d 1539, 1541 [2011], lv dismissed 18 NY3d 864 [2012]; Farrell v K.J.D.E.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Holst v. Liberatore
Moreover, the original complaint provided the necessary evidentiary support for the motion (see McFarland, 2 AD3d at 1300; see also Dever v DeVito, 84 AD3d 1539, 1541 [2011], lv dismissed 18 NY3d 864 [2012]; Farrell v K.J.D.E.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
ZGODA-MARTIN, LINDA v. LIBERATORE, VICTOR
Moreover, the original complaint provided the necessary evidentiary support for the motion (see McFarland, 2 AD3d at 1300 ; see also Dever v DeVito, 84 AD3d 1539, 1541 , lv dismissed 18 NY3d 864 ; Farrell v K.J.D.E.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Global Reinsurance Corporation-U.S. Branch, Formerly Known as Gerling Global Reinsurance Corporation-U.S. Branch, Respondent,
v.
Equitas Ltd. Et Al., Appellants
v.
Equitas Ltd. Et Al., Appellants
Motion No: 2012-19.
New York Court of Appeals.
Jan 5, 2012.
Published
Motion by Society of Lloyd’s for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 19 copies filed within seven days.