- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- U & Me Homes, LLC v. County of Suffolk
- Docket
- 2021-06018, 2021-06019
- Filed
- May 27, 2026
- Slip Op
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03331
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03331 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2026)
Background
In October 1994, Suffolk County acquired title to property in the Town of Southampton situated within the South Fork Special Groundwater Protection Area and the Town’s Aquifer Protection Overlay District. In November 1999, the County sold the property at public auction, but imposed a restrictive covenant prohibiting certain uses to protect groundwater. The plaintiff, U & Me Homes, LLC, subsequently acquired the property and commenced an action seeking a declaration that the restrictive covenant was unenforceable, arguing that the County lacked authority to impose it, that it did not run with the land, and that it was extinguished by the doctrine of merger.
The Supreme Court, Suffolk County granted U & Me Homes’ motion for summary judgment on its fourth cause of action and sua sponte declared that enforcement of the restrictive covenant would constitute “an unconstitutional taking per se.” The court entered judgment declaring the covenant void and of no legal effect. The County and Town of Southampton appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department reversed the judgment, denied the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion on the fourth cause of action, and granted the defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment on the second, third, and fourth causes of action. The court found that the Supreme Court erred in declaring the restrictive covenant void and in finding an unconstitutional taking.
The court’s analysis addressed the legal validity of the restrictive covenant. The covenant was imposed when the County sold the property, which was located in an environmentally sensitive groundwater protection area. The court found that the County had authority to impose such conditions when divesting property within a special groundwater protection zone, and that the covenant properly ran with the land. The court also rejected the merger doctrine argument, finding that the circumstances did not support extinguishment of the covenant.
On the taking claim, the court reversed the sua sponte declaration that enforcement would constitute an unconstitutional taking, finding it was procedurally improper and substantively unsupported. The matter was remitted for further proceedings on the remaining causes of action.
Takeaways
This decision is significant for land use and environmental law practitioners. It confirms that counties may impose restrictive covenants on property when selling parcels within designated groundwater protection areas, and that such covenants can run with the land to bind subsequent purchasers. The decision also reinforces that a sua sponte declaration of an unconstitutional taking — without a pending motion on the issue — is procedurally improper.
The merger doctrine defense — which argues that a restrictive covenant is extinguished when the dominant and servient estates come under common ownership — was found inapplicable here. Practitioners should note that merger does not automatically apply to all restrictive covenants, particularly those imposed by governmental entities for public purposes like groundwater protection.
Why It Matters
For developers purchasing property in environmentally sensitive areas, this case confirms that restrictive covenants imposed by governmental entities at the time of sale are enforceable and can significantly limit development. Due diligence before purchasing such property must include a thorough review of all recorded covenants and restrictions. For municipalities, the decision validates the use of restrictive covenants as a tool for protecting environmental resources when divesting public property, providing assurance that courts will enforce these restrictions against subsequent purchasers.