Justice Francesca Connolly

Read Full-Text Decision

The parties, siblings, disagreed about the future of their family's farm. Plaintiffs sought to sell development rights, or place a conservation easement on the property, to preserve the property as farmland. They rejected defendant's offer to carve out a piece of the property for herself sought that plaintiffs could use the remainder. Supreme court held development rights are not real property, or a part thereof, under Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1602. On an issue of first impression, Second Department, noting the definition of “real property” in General Construction Law §40, and applying the “bundle-of-rights” metaphor stated by the Court of Appeals in Seawall Assocs. v. City of New York, 74 NY2d 92, ruled that development rights are “real property, or a part thereof” for purposes of RPAPL 1602. However, it held plaintiffs did not show that stripping the development rights from the underlying land would be “expedient” under RPAPL 1604. Plaintiffs did not present evidence of a proposed buyer for the development rights or the value of the underlying property with and without the development rights. Nor did plaintiffs present evidence of any other tangible or intangible benefit to be achieved by a sale of the development rights.

Justice Francesca Connolly