Court of Appeals of the State of New York.Argued April 4, 1928
Decided May 1, 1928
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Page 528
Charles L. Craig for appellant.
George Zabriskie and Charles M. Kritzman for respondent.
Per Curiam.
Future changes in the character of the neighborhood as now maintained by law and usage may make it inequitable hereafter to enforce the covenant in suit. We deal only with conditions as they existed at the trial. The question whether the Princeton Club has disabled itself, by a breach of the covenant, from enforcing the restriction is not raised by an appropriate exception and is not before us on this appeal.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
CARDOZO, Ch. J., POUND, CRANE, ANDREWS, LEHMAN, KELLOGG and O’BRIEN, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed.
Page 529
27 N.Y.S.2d 198 CORDAS et al. v. PEERLESS TRANSP. CO. et al. City Court of…
222 N.Y. 88 (1917) Dec 4, 1917 · New York Court of Appeals Otis F. Wood, Appellant,…
81 A.D.2d 434 (1981) 440 N.Y.S. 2d 941 Aharon Rahabi, Appellant, v. Jack Morrison et…
48 Misc.2d 345 (1965) In the Matter of The Estate of Joseph Schlinger, Deceased. Surrogate's…
103 A.D.2d 632 (1984)481 N.Y.S. 2d 545 Angelo J. Bartolone, Appellant, v. Lynne A. L.…
Matter of C.C. v D.C. 2025 NY Slip Op 05017 Decided on September 18, 2025…