670 N.Y.S.2d 560 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1998
—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the rights of the parties with respect to certain real property, the defendant West Branch Conservation Association, Inc., appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Bergerman, J.), dated March 24, 1997, which, upon an order granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, declared that its conservation easement did not bar the owners of the burdened estate from conveying an easement for ingress, egress, and utilities to the plaintiff.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff, Redwood Construction Corp. (hereinafter Redwood), purchased a large parcel of property in the Town of Clarkstown and subdivided it for housing. One of the lots
Prior to the transfer of the Doornbosch easement to the plaintiff, it was discovered that the Doornbosch property was burdened by a conservation easement which had been granted to the appellant West Branch Conservation Association (hereinafter West Branch) by the Doornbosches’ predecessors in interest. The conservation easement prohibited any improvements or changes to the Doornbosch property that would affect its natural, open, and scenic nature, or would cause damage to an environmentally-sensitive flood plain. It further provided that changes in the use of the Doornbosch property could not be effected without the written consent of West Branch, which could not be reasonably withheld. The Doornbosches thereafter refused to convey the easement, and Redwood commenced this action seeking, inter alia, a declaration that West Branch’s conservation easement did not bar the conveyance of the Doornbosch easement and that, in the alternative, if it did so bar the conveyance, then West Branch had unreasonably withheld its consent. The Supreme Court declared, inter alia, that the conveyance of the Doornbosch easement was not barred, and alternatively, that West Branch’s consent was unreasonably withheld. We affirm.
Where, as here, a contract is unambiguous on its face, it may be interpreted by the court so as to give effect to the intent of the parties as expressed by the unequivocal language employed (see, Kailasanathan v Mysorekar, 234 AD2d 425; Weiner v Anesthesia Assocs., 203 AD2d 455). Here, the restrictive covenants set forth in West Branch’s conservation easement do not expressly address or prohibit the proposed use of the access way at issue. Rather, the conservation easement expressly reserved to the grantors the right to “sell, give away or otherwise convey the Protected Property or any portion or portions thereof, provided such conveyance is consistent with and subject to the terms of this Conservation Easement”, and prohibited only those changes in use of the property as “would