## Facts

- In 1891, the Stewart heirs conveyed land in Garden City to the Cathedral of the Incarnation, restricting use to “religious uses or educational purposes.”
- The 1891 deed did not state that the Cathedral’s title would terminate automatically upon breach of the restriction.
- In 1893, the Stewart heirs conveyed other nearby property to a neighboring landholder (predecessor to Garden City Company (GCC)) and purported to transfer any remaining interest they held in the Cathedral parcel.
- The Cathedral used the property for church purposes for decades.
- In 1993, the Cathedral entered bankruptcy; a court-directed process led the Cathedral to pursue sales of some real property.
- The Cathedral commenced an action seeking (1) a declaration that GCC had no ownership or reentry rights and (2) extinguishment of the restriction under RPAPL § 1951 (stale conditions).
- The Cathedral presented evidence that retaining all property under the restriction was financially burdensome and impaired its ability to fund its religious and community activities.
- GCC opposed, asserting that the restriction created a defeasible fee and that GCC owned an enforceable future interest allegedly assigned from the Stewart heirs; GCC also argued RPAPL § 1951 would violate due process if used to eliminate its rights.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1891 deed created a condition subsequent with a right of reentry (as opposed to an automatically terminating estate) and, if so, whether that right was assignable to GCC’s predecessor in 1893.
2. Whether RPAPL § 1951 permitted extinguishment of the restriction as an obsolete or burdensome condition that no longer served its original purpose.
3. Whether applying RPAPL § 1951 to eliminate GCC’s claimed interest violated due process.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment for the Cathedral.
- The court held the 1891 deed created, at most, a condition subsequent with a right of reentry because it lacked language providing for automatic termination.
- The court held that, under New York law applicable to the late-19th-century conveyances, a right of reentry was not assignable or devisable; therefore, the attempted 1893 transfer was void and GCC had no enforceable future interest.
- Independently, the court held the restriction was properly extinguished under RPAPL § 1951 because it had become a financial burden and no longer substantially advanced the restriction’s original purpose.
- The court rejected GCC’s due process challenge and upheld RPAPL § 1951 as applied.

## Legal Principles

- A deed restricting use without providing for automatic termination upon breach creates a condition subsequent with a right of reentry (right of reacquisition), not a possibility of reverter.
- Under historical New York doctrine governing such conveyances, a grantor’s right of reentry is not assignable or devisable; attempted assignments are void.
- Under RPAPL § 1951, a court may extinguish a restrictive condition where changed circumstances render the restriction a substantial burden on the owner and it no longer substantially furthers its original purpose.
- Eliminating a restriction under RPAPL § 1951 does not violate due process where the claimant lacks an enforceable property interest and the statute operates through judicial process.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that GCC held no enforceable future interest because any reserved right of reentry in the 1891 deed was nonassignable and could not have been transferred in 1893, and it further held that the religious-use restriction was properly extinguished as a stale condition under RPAPL § 1951 without offending due process.


Cathedral of the Incarnation in the Diocese of Long Island, Inc. v. Garden City Co., 265 A.D.2d 286, 697 N.Y.S.2d 56 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 1999)