Village of Ardsley v. Town of Greenburgh, 55 N.Y.2d 915 (1982)

A village lacks standing to challenge a restrictive covenant on land acquired by a town when the village’s own rights or interests are not directly affected by the covenant.

Summary

The Town of Greenburgh acquired the Scarsdale Bath and Tennis Club and sought to restrict access to it. The Village of Ardsley challenged this, arguing the town improperly acquired the property and the access restriction was invalid. The New York Court of Appeals held that the town’s acquisition was valid as a town-wide improvement, but the Village of Ardsley lacked standing to challenge the restrictive covenant because it failed to demonstrate any direct harm to the village itself, distinct from the harm to its residents. The court emphasized the village needed a directly affected right or interest to bring such a challenge.

Facts

The Town of Greenburgh acquired the Scarsdale Bath and Tennis Club. The town intended to use the property as a park for residents of the unincorporated area of the Town and the Village of Ardsley.
The deed to the town contained a covenant restricting access to the park to two streets running through the Village of Ardsley.
The Village of Ardsley challenged the acquisition and the restrictive covenant.

Procedural History

The lower court ruled against the town on the acquisition and the restrictive covenant.
The Appellate Division affirmed.
The Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division’s order, upholding the town’s acquisition but finding the Village of Ardsley lacked standing to challenge the restrictive covenant.

Issue(s)

Whether the Town of Greenburgh properly acquired the Scarsdale Bath and Tennis Club.
Whether the Village of Ardsley has standing to challenge the restrictive covenant in the deed to the town.

Holding

No, because the town board acquired title in its own name and on behalf of the town alone, an action authorized by subdivision 4 of section 220 of the Town Law.
No, because the Village of Ardsley failed to demonstrate that the restrictive covenant directly affected its own rights or interests, as distinct from the interests of its residents.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the Town of Greenburgh properly acquired the Scarsdale Bath and Tennis Club under subdivision 4 of section 220 of the Town Law, which allows for town-wide improvements assessable against all taxable property in the town.

Regarding standing, the Court cited Marcus v. Village of Mamaroneck, 283 N.Y. 325, emphasizing that absent a right or interest of the village directly affected by the covenant, the village lacks standing to seek a declaration of its invalidity.

The Court also noted that a declaration of the invalidity of the covenant could not be made in an action to which the grantors, in whose favor the restrictive covenant ostensibly runs, are not parties.

The Court distinguished the village’s claim from that of residents who might be injured by increased traffic, stating that the stipulation at trial indicated that the covenant did not create a problem for the village as distinct from its residents. The Court stated that whether that covenant runs afoul of our holding in Atlantic Beach Prop. Owners’ Assn. v Town of Hempstead (3 NY2d 434) is not an issue the village may raise.

In effect, the Court emphasized the need for a direct and demonstrable injury to the village itself for it to have standing to challenge the covenant. As the Court stated, “Absent a right or interest of the village directly affected by the covenant, there is no standing on the part of the village to seek a declaration of the invalidity of the covenant.”