Riverside Syndicate, Inc. v. Saltzman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Riverside Syndicate, Inc. v. Saltzman

49 A.D.3d 402, 852 N.Y.2d 840

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

DecidedMarch 18, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 402 (Riverside Syndicate, Inc. v. Saltzman) 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

Riverside Syndicate, Inc. v. Saltzman, 49 A.D.3d 402, 852 N.Y.2d 840 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Landlord failed to “complete” service of the notice of petitions and petitions by filing proof of service (RPAPL 735 [2] [b]) at least five days prior to the date the petitions were noticed to be heard (see RPAPL 733 [1]). A summary proceeding is a special proceeding “governed entirely by statute . . . and it is well established that there must be strict compliance with the statutory requirements to give the court jurisdiction” (Berkeley Assoc. Co. v Di Nolfi, 122 AD2d 703, 705 [1986], lv dismissed 69 NY2d 804 [1987]; MSG Pomp Corp. v Doe, 185 AD2d 798 [1992]). Thus, the court should have granted respondents’ motions to dismiss the petitions. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Williams, Buckley and Acosta, JJ. [See 15 Misc 3d 138(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 50925(U).]

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

Landlord failed to “complete” service of the notice of petitions and petitions by filing proof of service (RPAPL 735 [2] [b]) at least five days prior to the date the petitions were noticed to be heard (see RPAPL 733 [1]). A summary proceeding is a special proceeding “governed entirely by statute . . . and it is well established that there must be strict compliance with the statutory requirements to give the court jurisdiction” (Berkeley Assoc. Co. v Di Nolfi, 122 AD2d 703, 705 [1986], lv dismissed 69 NY2d 804 [1987]; MSG Pomp Corp. v Doe, 185 AD2d 798 [1992]). Thus, the court should have granted respondents’ motions to dismiss the petitions. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Williams, Buckley and Acosta, JJ. [See 15 Misc 3d 138(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 50925(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 402, 852 N.Y.2d 840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riverside-syndicate-inc-v-saltzman-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack