Rick v. West

Supreme Court of New York, Trial Term, Westchester County · 1962 · Property

PropertyRestrictive covenantsEquitable enforcementChanged conditionsresidential-use restrictionsingle-family dwellingchanged neighborhood conditionsequity

Facts

Plaintiffs' predecessor, Chester Rick, voluntarily imposed recorded restrictions on a 62-acre tract to create a residential community of single-family homes. Defendant later bought a half-acre lot subject to those restrictions, discussed them with Rick, and relied on them in deciding to buy and build her home. Plaintiffs then contracted to sell 15 acres of the tract to Peekskill Hospital and argued that a clause allowing exceptions for "special unforeseen conditions" authorized the sale. Plaintiffs also argued that changed neighborhood conditions and rezoning had made the restrictions unenforceable and of no substantial benefit to defendant.

Issue

Could plaintiffs obtain a declaratory judgment permitting sale of 15 acres for a hospital notwithstanding residential restrictive covenants, either because the declaration's exception clause allowed it or because changed conditions and rezoning had rendered the covenants unenforceable or only compensable in damages?

Rule

A recorded restrictive covenant will be enforced in equity unless changes in conditions are substantial enough to destroy the usefulness of the covenant; ordinarily, if the protected area itself has not deteriorated, surrounding changes do not bar enforcement. A reservation permitting exceptions for special unforeseen conditions may allow modification of subsidiary provisions consistent with the community plan, but it does not permit removal of core residential-use restrictions that define the character of the community. Rezoning does not itself negate private restrictive covenants, and where the restriction is not outmoded and affords real benefit, the owner seeking enforcement is not relegated to pecuniary damages.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Albany, Green Hollow Development recorded covenants restricting a 40-acre subdivision to detached single-family homes. The declaration also stated that "special unforeseen conditions may require exceptions" if approved in writing by the original developer so long as "the spirit and character of the community are preserved." After several lots were sold, the developer approved a 6-acre parcel for a private medical clinic, and lot owner Nina Patel objected.

Is the clinic most likely permitted under the exception clause?

Explanation. The majority treated a general exception clause as permitting adjustments consistent with the established community character, such as details of lot configuration or plantings, but not as authorizing elimination of the central residential-use restriction. Allowing a nonresidential clinic would alter the defining character of the development. The objecting owner need not first prove diminution in value to insist on enforcement.