NYCHA Pub. Hous. Preserv. I LLC v. Anderson

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

NYCHA Pub. Hous. Preserv. I LLC v. Anderson

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 4, 2017

Docket2017 NYSlipOp 51645(U)

StatusPublished

This text of NYCHA Pub. Hous. Preserv. I LLC v. Anderson (NYCHA Pub. Hous. Preserv. I LLC v. Anderson) 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

NYCHA Pub. Hous. Preserv. I LLC v. Anderson, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

NYCHA Public Housing Preservation I LLC, Managed By New York City Housing Authority—Frederick E. Samuel Apts. Houses, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,

against

Charlotte Anderson, Calender Nos. 17-333/334 Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.

Tenant appeals from (1) an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Anthony Cannataro, J.), dated May 16, 2016, which denied her motion to vacate a default final judgment in a nonpayment summary proceeding and (2) an order (same court and Judge) dated July 28, 2016, which denied her motion for leave to renew and reargue the aforesaid order.

Per Curiam.

Order (Anthony Cannataro, J.), dated July 28, 2016, reversed, without costs, renewal granted and matter remanded for a traverse hearing to determine whether the court had jurisdiction to render the default final judgment. Appeal from order (Anthony Cannataro, J.), dated May 16, 2016, dismissed, without costs, as academic.

The affidavit of service established that the process server delivered a copy of the petition and notice of petition to a person of suitable age and discretion at the subject commercial space, located at 2529 Adam Clayton Powell Blvd., and then mailed a copy of the petition and notice of petition to tenant at the same address. The papers submitted in support of tenant's renewed motion to vacate the default suggests that prior to such service, landlord had "written information of the residence address" of tenant (RPAPL 735[1][a]), located at 102 Bradhurst Ave, in Manhattan. This evidence was sufficient to rebut the presumption of proper mailing by showing that process was mailed to an incorrect address (see RPAPL 735[1][a]; Northern v Hernandez, 17 AD3d 285 [2005]), thus necessitating a traverse hearing (see Chaudry Constr. Corp. v James G. Kalpakis & Assoc., 60 AD3d 544 [2009]; see also Matter of Pasanella v Quinn, 126 AD3d 504 [2015]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: December 04, 2017

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

NYCHA Public Housing Preservation I LLC, Managed By New York City Housing Authority—Frederick E. Samuel Apts. Houses, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,

against

Charlotte Anderson, Calender Nos. 17-333/334 Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.

Tenant appeals from (1) an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Anthony Cannataro, J.), dated May 16, 2016, which denied her motion to vacate a default final judgment in a nonpayment summary proceeding and (2) an order (same court and Judge) dated July 28, 2016, which denied her motion for leave to renew and reargue the aforesaid order.

Per Curiam.

Order (Anthony Cannataro, J.), dated July 28, 2016, reversed, without costs, renewal granted and matter remanded for a traverse hearing to determine whether the court had jurisdiction to render the default final judgment. Appeal from order (Anthony Cannataro, J.), dated May 16, 2016, dismissed, without costs, as academic.

The affidavit of service established that the process server delivered a copy of the petition and notice of petition to a person of suitable age and discretion at the subject commercial space, located at 2529 Adam Clayton Powell Blvd., and then mailed a copy of the petition and notice of petition to tenant at the same address. The papers submitted in support of tenant's renewed motion to vacate the default suggests that prior to such service, landlord had "written information of the residence address" of tenant (RPAPL 735[1][a]), located at 102 Bradhurst Ave, in Manhattan. This evidence was sufficient to rebut the presumption of proper mailing by showing that process was mailed to an incorrect address (see RPAPL 735[1][a]; Northern v Hernandez, 17 AD3d 285 [2005]), thus necessitating a traverse hearing (see Chaudry Constr. Corp. v James G. Kalpakis & Assoc., 60 AD3d 544 [2009]; see also Matter of Pasanella v Quinn, 126 AD3d 504 [2015]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: December 04, 2017

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

NYCHA Pub. Hous. Preserv. I LLC v. Anderson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nycha-pub-hous-preserv-i-llc-v-anderson-nyappterm-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack