Summary
In City of New York v. Mortel, 161 Misc 2d 681, 616 NYS2d 683 (App Term, 2nd and 11th Jud Dists 1994), a proceeding involving similar issues to the issues in the case at bar, the Appellate Term affirmed an order of the lower court which held that the actions of the petitioner in that proceeding failed to comply with RPAPL § 741 (3).
Summary of this case from Wells Fargo Bank v. MekamkweOpinion
June 24, 1994
Appeal from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, Diana Johnson, J.
Paul A. Crotty, Corporation Counsel of New York City (Pamela Seider Dolgow and John Hogrogian of counsel), for appellant.
Brooklyn Legal Services Corp. A (Martin S. Needelman, Paul J. Acinapura and Zelda E. Stewart of counsel), for respondents.
MEMORANDUM.
Order unanimously affirmed with $10 costs.
A squatter proceeding was commenced against three occupants of the building by nailing and mailing one copy of the notice of petition and petition to the common entrance door of the building. The return on appeal does not indicate that petitioner made any attempt to contact the occupants or to have any agent visit the premises to discern how many families lived there. In effect, the city served the "building" in order to vacate same.
We affirm the finding of the court below that the actions of the city failed to comply with RPAPL 741 (3). We also note that the actions of petitioner failed to comply with RPAPL 735 since said section anticipates the individual service of a person and does not anticipate that jurisdiction over multiple occupants of separate apartments may be obtained through the service of one notice of petition and petition. We therefore conclude that the service herein was improper and that separate proceedings should have been commenced with consideration being given on the part of the petitioner to thereafter moving for consolidation (see, Zamar v Fair, 153 Misc.2d 913, 915; see also, MSG Pomp Corp. v Doe, 185 A.D.2d 798, 801).
KASSOFF, P.J., SCHOLNICK and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.