Opinion
May 28, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.).
It is well settled that strict compliance with the provisions of CPLR 7503 (c) is required and that petitioner's service of her petition to stay arbitration by ordinary mail, although otherwise timely, failed to satisfy the requirement of CPLR 7503 (c) that "[n]otice of such application shall be served in the same manner as a summons or by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested." (Matter of Yak Taxi v. Teke, 41 N.Y.2d 1020; see also, Matter of Hanover Ins. Co. v. McIntyre, 142 A.D.2d 728, 729; Matter of American Sec. Ins. Co. v. Stanley, 86 A.D.2d 834; McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of N.Y., Book 7B, CPLR C7503:12, at 366.)
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.