Eagle Enterprises, Inc. v. Gross, Court of Appeals of New York, 1976, 39 N.Y. 2d 505, 349 N.E.2d 816, 384 N.Y.S.2d 717.

The case reiterates that in order for a covenant to run with the land, it must be shown that: 1) the original grantor and grantee intended it to run with the land 2) privity of estate exists between the partly claiming the benefit of the covenant and the party upon whom the burden of the covenant is to be imposed and 3) the covenant is deemed to "touch and concern" the land. Here, the court found the water privileges did not touch and concern the land pointing out that the covenant did not substantially affect the ownership interest of the landowners because the landowners had other sources of water. The court also noted that affirmative covenants are disfavored in the law.  

On the other side of spectrum from Eagle, there is Neponsit Property Owners' Association, Inc. v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank, Court of Appeals of New York,1938, 278 N.Y. 248, 15 N.E.2d 793. Here the court found that the covenant to pay an annual charge for the maintenance of common areas to the homeowners' association (which was included in the deed) was a covenant that met the "touch and concern" requirement because the landowners benefitted from the covenant through enjoyment of an easement to utilize the public areas in the subdivision.