Eight Associates v. Hynes

New York Court of Appeals

Eight Associates v. Hynes

481 N.E.2d 555, 65 N.Y.2d 739, 65 N.Y. 739, 492 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 15131

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 6, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by190 cases

This text of 481 N.E.2d 555 (Eight Associates v. Hynes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eight Associates v. Hynes, 481 N.E.2d 555, 65 N.Y.2d 739, 65 N.Y. 739, 492 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 15131 (N.Y. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question not answered as unnecessary.

The question before the court is whether the Appellate Division erred as a matter of law in finding that the “reasonable application” requirement of RPAPL 735 (1) had not been met by appellant landlord by a single attempt to make service on respondent tenant at noon on a weekday before affixing the notice of petition and petition to the apartment door and mailing a second copy by certified mail. Put another way, the question before us is whether, on this record, there was demonstrated “reasonable application” as a matter of law. Viewing this case in that manner, we conclude there was no error of law, and the order should therefore be affirmed.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye and Kassal * concur in memorandum; Judges Alexander and Titone taking no part.

Order affirmed, etc.

*

Designated pursuant to NY Constitution, article VI, § 2.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question not answered as unnecessary.

The question before the court is whether the Appellate Division erred as a matter of law in finding that the “reasonable application” requirement of RPAPL 735 (1) had not been met by appellant landlord by a single attempt to make service on respondent tenant at noon on a weekday before affixing the notice of petition and petition to the apartment door and mailing a second copy by certified mail. Put another way, the question before us is whether, on this record, there was demonstrated “reasonable application” as a matter of law. Viewing this case in that manner, we conclude there was no error of law, and the order should therefore be affirmed.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye and Kassal * concur in memorandum; Judges Alexander and Titone taking no part.

Order affirmed, etc.

*

Designated pursuant to NY Constitution, article VI, § 2.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

481 N.E.2d 555, 65 N.Y.2d 739, 65 N.Y. 739, 492 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 15131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eight-associates-v-hynes-ny-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack