Opinion
February 18, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts.
Purported appeal from the order dated March 19, 1985, dismissed. No appeal lies from an order denying reargument.
Order dated December 31, 1984, affirmed.
Petitioner is awarded one bill of costs.
We agree with the Appellate Term that conspicuous place service of the notice of petition and petition was proper under the circumstances herein (see, RPAPL 735; Brooklyn Hgts. Realty Co. v. Gliwa, 92 A.D.2d 602; Eight Assoc. v. Hynes, 102 A.D.2d 746, affd 65 N.Y.2d 739; Parkchester Apts. Co. v. Hawkins, 111 Misc.2d 896). While the attempt at personal service at the home of the tenant was made during normal working hours, the process server's investigation disclosed that the tenant was usually at home at such time.
The other contentions raised by the tenant are either without merit or based upon documents which are not properly part of the record on appeal. Bracken, J.P., Rubin, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.