Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of the City of N.Y. v. 337-341 E. 146 Realty LLC

2025 NY Slip Op 31250(U)
CourtCivil Court Of The City Of New York, Bronx County
DecidedApril 9, 2025
DocketIndex No. 310518-24/BX
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 31250(U) (Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of the City of N.Y. v. 337-341 E. 146 Realty LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Civil Court Of The City Of New York, Bronx County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of the City of N.Y. v. 337-341 E. 146 Realty LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 31250(U) (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2025).

Opinion

Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of the City of N.Y. v 337-341 E. 146 Realty LLC 2025 NY Slip Op 31250(U) April 9, 2025 Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County Docket Number: Index No. 310518-24/BX Judge: Travis J. Arrindell Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. FILED: BRONX CIVIL COURT - L&T 04/10/2025 03:47 PM INDEX NO. LT-310518-24/BX NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2025

CIVIL COURT OF TH E CITY OF EW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX. HOUSING PART H ------------------------------------------------------------------X DEPARTME T OF HOUSJ G PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF N EW YORK, Index No. : 310518-24/BX Petitioner, DECISION/ORDER -against- SUBJECT PREMISES: 337EAST 146STREET 337-341 EAST 146 REALTY LLC, BRO NX, NY 10451 MOTT HAVE GROUP LLC, DA YID KLE I ER, YONAHROTH, SAM SCHEI ER,

Respondents . ------------------------------------------------------------------X

Present: HON. T RAVIS J. ARRINDELL Judge, Housing Court

Rec itati on, as required by CPLR §2219(A), of the papers considered in the review of Respondents ' Motion to Dismiss and Petitioner ' s Cross-Moti on for Partial Summary Judgment: Papers

Respondents Motion ( umbered 23-26 on NYSCEF) ... ..... .. ...... ........ ..... ... .. .. .. ... ... .. ... .. l Petitioner's Cross Motion and Opposition (Numbered 27-32 on NYSCEF) ........... .... ... .. 2_ Respondents ' Opposition ( umbered 33-36 on YSCEF) ...... ............. .. ................. .. ..... ... ]. Petitioner's Repl y (Numbered 37 on YSCEF) ....... . .... .. ....... .. ... ... . .... .. .. .... .... . ... . ± Other (Numbered 8, 11 , and 15-20 on YSCEF) ....... ...................... ... .... . ... ....... ... -5_

Upon the foregoing cited papers, the decision/order on this motion is as follows:

Service of the Notice of Petition and Petition

CPLR § 308 (4) states: If personal service upon a natural person cannot be made by delivering the summons within the state upon the person to be served or by delivering the summons within the state to a person of suitable age and discretion with due diligence, then personal service maybe attained , by affixing the summons to the door of either the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode within the state of the person to be served and by either mailing the summons to such person at hi s or her last known residence or by mailing the summons by first class mail to the person to be served at his or her actual place of business.

[* 1] 1 of 21 FILED: BRONX CIVIL COURT - L&T 04/10/2025 03:47 PM INDEX NO. LT-310518-24/BX NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2025

A process server' s affidavit indicating that they served Respondents in accordance with CPLR § 3 08 (4 ), constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service. 1 Where a defendant fails to specifically refute the contents of the affidavit of service or substantiate his conc!usory allegation, the court can properly deny defendant' motion without conducting a hearing on the issues of service. 2 In addition, no traverse hearing is required where there is no sworn affidavit of denial by the party challenging service. 3 As an initial matter, since Respondent David Kleiner ("Kleiner") is the only individual who submitted a sworn verification to the answer denying service, the remaining discussion shall only deal with the motion to dismiss as it applies to him. Without any sworn affidavits from Respondents Yonah Roth and Sam Scheiner, a traverse hearing is not required for them. 4

Additionally , since Kleiner, on behalf of the corporate Respondents 337-341 East 146 Realty LLC, and Mott Haven Group LLC, does not deny the process server' s service affidavit upon them through New York's Secretary of State, it is also unnecessary to conduct a traverse hearing for the corporate Respondents. 5 A review of the process server's affidavit for the otice of Electronic Filing, the Order to Show Cause, and the Verified Petition with Exhibits (herein known as the "Doci:ments" ) demonstrates they served Kleiner pursuant to § 308 (4 ). The affidavit indicates conspicuous- place service. on March 26, 2024, at 3 :39 PM .6 The process server stated he posted the documents to the door of the address at 1417 Avenue J, Brooklyn NY 11230 ("Service Address"') .7 The process server stated that an individual at the service address "did not want to accept service" of the papers. 8 He stated that the documents "were posted to a 7 floor building, glass door black frame silver intercom." 9 He further stated that the documents were posted .. to [the] glass building door" and described the building as having cream and gray walls, with gray ° flooring. 1 Finally, the process server affirmed that on March 29, 2024, he mailed true copies of the documents indicated above by first class mail. 11 The process server's affidavit appears facially sufficient and therefore raises a presumption of proper service. Kleiner, in his verified answer, failed to rebut the presumption of proper service. They failed to specifically refute the contents of Petitioner's affidavit of service. The Court first notes that Kleiner, except for how many floors the service address contains, does not refute any of the assertions made by the process server. Kleiner does not deny: (I) receiving service of the documents; (2) the date and time the process erver posted the documents to the service address; (3) that the process server posted the documents to the glass door at the service address ; (4) that the glass door has a black frame; (5) that near the door is a silver intercom; (6) that an individual refused to accept the document' s service; or (7) that located at the service address are cream and gray walls with gray flooring.

1 Sando Rea ltv Cor:p v. Joram J. Aris. et al. , 209 A.D.2d 68 2 (App Div. 2nd Dept. , 1994). 2 &; See also 157 Broadway Associates LLC, v. Eduard, 28 Misc . 3d 140(A) 3 European American Bank v. Abramoff, 20 I A.D.2d 611 (App Div. 2nd Dept. , 1994). "& 5 See Petitioner·s Affidavit of Service ( YSCEF Doc. # 11 ). 6& 7& 8 Jg_, 9& 10 lg_, 11 w.,

[* 2] 2 of 21 FILED: BRONX CIVIL COURT - L&T 04/10/2025 03:47 PM INDEX NO. LT-310518-24/BX NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2025

Kleiner argues improper service because the process server served the documents at the "7th floor [of the] building." I2 To support his argument Kleiner submits a picture of the service address elevator's buttons, which shows floors C, I, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. 13 Next Kleiner submits a picture of the service address ' directory, which allegedly '·shows there is a basement, 4D, SD, 6D and 6A, but there is no 7." 14 Kleiner concludes since there is no 7th floor at the service address, the process server ' s claim of proper service is defective. Kleiner' s argument lacks merit. Kleiner mischaracterizes the process server's affidavit. The process server does not affirm that he served the documents on the 7th floor as argued by Kleiner. The process server' s affidavit states that he posted the documents to a "seven floor building glass door black frame silver intercom.· He posted the documents at the building ' s entrance door. His description of the service address having seven floors , does not support Kleiner' s claim that he served the documents on the 7th floor. In fact, Respondents picture of the service address elevator's buttons supports the process server·s claim that the service address indeed has seven floors.

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

Related

Karr v. Black
55 A.D.3d 82 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Iandoli v. Lange
35 A.D.2d 793 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1970)
Gould v. McBride
36 A.D.2d 706 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1971)
Cellular Telephone Co. v. Village of Tarrytown
209 A.D.2d 57 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
D'Agostino v. Forty-Three East Equities Corp.
12 Misc. 3d 486 (New York Supreme Court, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 NY Slip Op 31250(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/department-of-hous-preserv-dev-of-the-city-of-ny-v-337-341-e-146-nycivctbronx-2025.