Property Rights Victory: Court Upholds Homeowners' Driveway Installation
This week we wanted to bring to your attention an interesting decision out of the Appellate Division, 3rd Department, which upheld a lower court’s ruling that, in part, dismissed a Plaintiff’s Complaint seeking a Declaratory Judgment that the Defendants’ installation of a driveway had violated a Restrictive Declaration contained in their Subdivision Covenants & Restrictions agreement. The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.
The Subdivision restrictions at issue state, in part, that “[n]o lot…shall be used for other than residential purposes” and that “[n]o building shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any lot other than [a] single-family dwelling for occupancy by not more than one family…” Accessory uses are required to be approved by an Architectural Control Committee.
The Defendants, the owners of two parcels within the subdivision, installed a driveway through one of the lots to their residence on the other lot. The Plaintiffs, owners of an adjacent parcel, sought a ruling that the driveway violated the subdivision’s restrictions and an Order directing its removal. The Defendants asserted that the restrictions did not apply to their driveway. The Supreme Court, Cortland County, granted the Defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss the complaint, holding that the driveway did not violate the restrictions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the lower court’s ruling. According to the Appellate Division, noting that “‘[t]he law favors free and unencumbered use of real property, and covenants restricting use are strictly construed against those seeking to enforce them’ [citations omitted]”,
“…the subdivision restrictions do not address requirements for the installation of private driveways anywhere in the text…[Therefore,] we must analyze whether a driveway, installed for private use, falls under the ‘residential purpose’ definition and whether such driveway should be considered an ‘accessory structure’… Plaintiff’s description, in the complaint, of the driveway as a ‘roadway’ or ‘public highway’ such that it would violate the subdivision restrictions has not been established by clear and convincing evidence given that there is no evidence other than plaintiffs’ mere speculation that defendants would be utilizing the driveway or either of their parcels for anything other than private residential purposes [citations omitted].
“As to whether the driveway is an ‘accessory structure’ such that approval by the Committee is required…plaintiffs provide no clear and convincing evidence that the ‘accessory structure’ is to be construed so broadly as to include driveways…[E]very parcel [in the subdivision] contains a driveway leading to a residence.” Kumar v. Franco, 2022 NY Slip Op 07486, decided December 29, 2022, is posted at https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2022/2022_07486.htm
When you subscribe to the blog, we will send you an e-mail when there are new updates on the site so you wouldn't miss them.
About the author
Home Abstract Corp. has placed the information on this website as a service to the general public. Use of this website and the information contained thereon does not in any manner constitute legal advice from Home Abstract Corp. to the user. Nothing herein shall serve to create an attorney/client relationship between Home Abstract Corp. and the user. While the information on this site may concern legal issues, it is not intended as legal advice or as a substitute for the particularized advice of your own legal counsel. Anyone seeking specific legal advice or assistance concerning the information available on this website should retain their own attorney for such legal counsel.
This website could include inaccuracies or typographical errors. The materials on this website are not guaranteed to be correct, complete, or up‐to‐date after the date of posting. The articles and information on this website are provided AS-IS; without warranty of any kind, either express or implied.
Each individual document published by Home Abstract Corp. on this website may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that specific document. Home Abstract Corp. hereby authorizes you to view, store, print and copy any pages within this website solely for your personal information and use and not for resale, re-publication, or further on-line or mass distribution. In consideration of this authorization, you agree that (a) any copy of the information or documents which you make shall retain all copyright and other proprietary notices contained herein and (b) nothing on this website shall be reproduced, sold, or distributed to third parties on-line or by mass mailing without the express written consent of Home Abstract Corp.
Some links within the Home Abstract Corp. website may lead to other sites that we believe may be useful or informative. The Home Abstract Corp. website does not incorporate any materials appearing in such linked sites by reference. These links to third party sites or information are not intended as, and should not be interpreted by you as, constituting or implying our endorsement, sponsorship, or recommendation of the third-party information, products, or services found there. We do not maintain or control these sites and accordingly make no guarantee concerning the accuracy, reliability, or currency of the information found thereon.
