Congregation Temple Israel v. Masback, 28 N.Y.2d 517 (1971)
A court of equity will not enforce a restrictive covenant where neighborhood property owners have unconscionably delayed in asserting their rights, inducing the opposing party to incur expenses based on the long-standing, unobjected violation.
Summary
Congregation Temple Israel purchased property in 1965, intending to use it as a residence for its rabbi and a synagogue. For 18 years prior, the property had been used as a chapel and religious administration offices by the Seventh Day Adventists, without objection from neighborhood property owners. After the sale, the neighbors sued to enforce a restrictive covenant limiting buildings to single-family dwelling houses. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts’ injunction, holding that the plaintiffs’ prolonged failure to object to the prior use of the property, which induced the defendant to purchase the property, barred their claim.
Facts
In 1965, Congregation Temple Israel (defendant) purchased property in Forest Hills, Queens, intending to use it as a residence for its rabbi and as a synagogue.
From 1946 to 1965, the property had been used by the Seventh Day Adventists as a chapel and religious administration offices, with a certificate of occupancy from the City of New York for such use.
Restrictive covenants in the deeds to lots in the subdivision limited buildings to “a dwelling house for the use and occupancy of not more than one family.”
Neighboring property owners (plaintiffs) brought suit to enforce the restrictive covenant, seeking to prevent the defendant from using the property as a synagogue and residence for the rabbi.
The plaintiffs only initiated the lawsuit after the sale of the property to the defendant congregation.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court, Queens County, issued a permanent injunction against the defendant, preventing it from using the premises for any purpose other than as a single-family dwelling.
The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court’s judgment.
The defendant appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a court of equity should enforce a restrictive covenant when neighborhood property owners have not objected to its violation for 18 years, and a new owner has relied on the lack of objection in purchasing the property?
Holding
No, because the plaintiffs’ unconscionable delay in asserting their rights prejudiced the defendant, barring equitable relief.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals focused on the plaintiffs’ delay in asserting their rights and the prejudice to the defendant resulting from that delay.
The court noted that the property had been used for non-residential purposes for 18 years before the defendant’s purchase, without any objection from the neighborhood property owners.
The court distinguished mere delay from delay that becomes unconscionable and causes prejudice. While simple delay, without prejudice, is not a bar to equitable relief, unconscionable delay that induces the other party to incur expenses, thereby prejudicing them if relief is granted, warrants denial of the request for equitable relief.
The court cited Forstmann v. Joray Holding Co., 244 N.Y. 22 (1926), and Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Sahlem, 254 N.Y. 161 (1930), as precedent for denying equitable relief in cases of prejudicial delay.
The court reasoned that the plaintiffs’ delay induced the defendant to purchase the property and incur expenses based on the apparent acceptance of the prior non-conforming use. To then enforce the covenant would unjustly prejudice the defendant.
The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ delay and its effect on the defendant were of such a character that an injunction should not have been issued.
The court did not reach the issue of whether the plaintiffs had standing to enforce the restrictions, deciding the case based on the defense of laches.