Spruce Hill Homes, Inc. v. Brieant
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Bibber v. Weber (New York Supreme Court 1951)
- Schottland v. Brown Harris Stevens Brooklyn, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Schottland v. Brown Harris Stevens Brooklyn, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- A & R Fuels, Inc. v. Lieberman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- Rajchandra Corp. v. Tom Sawyer Motor Inns, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Neary v. Martin (Haw. 1977)
- Illinois McGraw Electric Co. v. John W. Walters, Inc. (New York Supreme Court 1961)
- Illinois McGraw Electric Co. v. John J. Walters, Inc. (N.Y. 1959)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Plaintiff brought suit to foreclose a purchase money mortgage and, after answer and reply, moved for judgment pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice and section 476 of the Civil Practice Act. We are concerned with the third affirmative defense and counterclaim which sets up a breach, by the predecessors in title of defendants, including plaintiff’s assignor, of covenants of quiet enjoyment and freedom from encumbrances by reason of the fact that there existed across the land at the time of conveyance a private right of way by necessity in favor of an adjoining owner. One Couch at one time owned both defendants’ land and that of the adjoining owner. He first conveyed to the adjoining owner, and thereby a way of necessity to a highway, in favor of the adjoining owner, across the land now owned by defendants, passed by the grant. (Brigham v. Smith, 4 Gray [Mass.], 297.) Such an easement constituted a violation of the covenants mentioned *311 above whether or not the covenantee had knowledge of its existence. He was entitled to rely upon the covenants of his grantor. (Callanan v. Keenan, 224 N. Y. 503; Hymes v. Estey, 116 N. Y. 501, 507, 508; Huyck v. Andrews, 113 N. Y. 81, 85, 89-91; Pennock v. Goodrich, 104 Vt. 134.)
Triable issues are, therefore, presented with reference to the third affirmative defense and counterclaim.
The judgment of the Appellate Division should be modified by reversal of the order granting summary judgment as to the third affirmative defense and counterclaim, and as so modified affirmed, with costs to the appellant in this court and in the Appellate Division.
Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ., concur.
Judgment accordingly.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.