Ferro v. Lawrence

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Ferro v. Lawrence

195 Misc. 2d 529, 758 N.Y.S.2d 460, 2002 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1827

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 12, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 195 Misc. 2d 529 (Ferro v. Lawrence) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ferro v. Lawrence, 195 Misc. 2d 529, 758 N.Y.S.2d 460, 2002 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1827 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

[530]*530OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

A landlord’s attorney/agent is not a person authorized to initiate a summary proceeding in his or her own name, a defect that is not cured by captioning the proceeding in the name of a proper party in interest (RPAPL 721; Key Bank of N.Y. v Becker, 88 NY2d 899, 900 [1996]; Whelan v Veltre, 2002 NY Slip Op 40081 [U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2002]; cf. RPAPL 741). Moreover, landlord’s April 4, 2002 termination notice (Real Property Law § 232-b), purporting to terminate the tenancy as of the 6th of the following month, was a nullity in that it failed to terminate the tenancy on its renewal date, the first day of a calendar month following a notice served “at least one month before the expiration of the term” (Real Property Law § 232-b; see Orienta Gardens Co. v Pergola, NYLJ, Nov. 10, 1988, at 26, col 1 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; Hunt v Hart, 188 Misc 534 [1947]; 2 Dolan, Rasch’s Landlord and Tenant — Summary Proceedings § 30:54, at 460-461, 461 n 198 [4th ed]).

Floyd, P.J., Doyle and Winick, JJ., concur.

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

[530]*530OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

A landlord’s attorney/agent is not a person authorized to initiate a summary proceeding in his or her own name, a defect that is not cured by captioning the proceeding in the name of a proper party in interest (RPAPL 721; Key Bank of N.Y. v Becker, 88 NY2d 899, 900 [1996]; Whelan v Veltre, 2002 NY Slip Op 40081 [U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2002]; cf. RPAPL 741). Moreover, landlord’s April 4, 2002 termination notice (Real Property Law § 232-b), purporting to terminate the tenancy as of the 6th of the following month, was a nullity in that it failed to terminate the tenancy on its renewal date, the first day of a calendar month following a notice served “at least one month before the expiration of the term” (Real Property Law § 232-b; see Orienta Gardens Co. v Pergola, NYLJ, Nov. 10, 1988, at 26, col 1 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; Hunt v Hart, 188 Misc 534 [1947]; 2 Dolan, Rasch’s Landlord and Tenant — Summary Proceedings § 30:54, at 460-461, 461 n 198 [4th ed]).

Floyd, P.J., Doyle and Winick, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 Misc. 2d 529, 758 N.Y.S.2d 460, 2002 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferro-v-lawrence-nyappterm-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack