City of New York v. Clark

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City of New York v. Clark

234 A.D.2d 120, 650 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12421

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 12, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 120 (City of New York v. Clark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of New York v. Clark, 234 A.D.2d 120, 650 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12421 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered March 31, 1995, which reversed an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Howard Malatzky, J.), entered on or about October 29, 1993, inter alia, denying respondents’ motions to dismiss summary holdover petitions for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, without costs, and the Civil Court’s ex parte order is reinstated.

Petitioner’s demonstration that it had made three prior unsuccessful attempts to gain access to the building through various entrances, and that the mailboxes in the building’s front entrance were non-functional, was sufficient to set forth that service pursuant to RPAPL 735 was impracticable (see, Dobkin v Chapman, 21 NY2d 490). Under the circumstances presented, the Civil Court properly authorized service pursuant to CPLR 308 (5) by affixing process upon the building entrance door and a roll-down gate next to the door, and by inserting process through the mail slot of the door (see, Liebeskind v Liebeskind, 86 AD2d 207, affd 58 NY2d 858; see also, Tremont Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v Ndanusa, 144 AD2d 660, lv dismissed 73 NY2d 918 [allowing service by publication pursuant to CPLR 308 (5)]).

We have considered and rejected respondents’ additional claims. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered March 31, 1995, which reversed an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Howard Malatzky, J.), entered on or about October 29, 1993, inter alia, denying respondents’ motions to dismiss summary holdover petitions for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, without costs, and the Civil Court’s ex parte order is reinstated.

Petitioner’s demonstration that it had made three prior unsuccessful attempts to gain access to the building through various entrances, and that the mailboxes in the building’s front entrance were non-functional, was sufficient to set forth that service pursuant to RPAPL 735 was impracticable (see, Dobkin v Chapman, 21 NY2d 490). Under the circumstances presented, the Civil Court properly authorized service pursuant to CPLR 308 (5) by affixing process upon the building entrance door and a roll-down gate next to the door, and by inserting process through the mail slot of the door (see, Liebeskind v Liebeskind, 86 AD2d 207, affd 58 NY2d 858; see also, Tremont Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v Ndanusa, 144 AD2d 660, lv dismissed 73 NY2d 918 [allowing service by publication pursuant to CPLR 308 (5)]).

We have considered and rejected respondents’ additional claims. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 120, 650 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-new-york-v-clark-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack