From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Naman v. Sylveen Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 18, 1995
222 A.D.2d 564 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

December 18, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the order dated September 28, 1994, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated September 30, 1994, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated September 30, 1994, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.

The plaintiff correctly contends that his action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful eviction and conversion was properly commenced in the Supreme Court, which had jurisdiction to determine the cross motion for partial summary judgment ( see, Kolomensky v Wiener, 135 A.D.2d 505; Third City Corp. v Lee, 41 A.D.2d 611). However, since the plaintiff failed to establish his causes of action for wrongful eviction and conversion sufficiently to warrant the court to direct judgment in his favor as a matter of law, the plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment was properly denied ( see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557).

There is no merit to the plaintiff's contention that the process server failed to comply with the "reasonable application" requirement of RPAPL 735 and that the judgment of eviction against him was, therefore, void. The process server attempted to serve the notice of petition and petition during the plaintiff's posted office hours. This attempt encompassed a reasonable expectation of success and thus satisfied the requirement of "reasonable application" ( see, Brooklyn Hgts. Realty Co. v Gliwa, 92 A.D.2d 602; Mark Stamping Corp. v Mark Cabinet Mfg. Corp., 160 Misc.2d 555; Kulich v Kulich, 104 Misc.2d 454; Palumbo v Estate of Clark, 94 Misc.2d 1, 4; 3 Rasch, New York Landlord Tenant — Summary Proceedings, § 42:7, at 88 [3d ed]). However, there are questions of fact concerning the plaintiff's causes of action which require the denial of summary judgment to both parties. Rosenblatt, J.P., Copertino, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Naman v. Sylveen Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 18, 1995
222 A.D.2d 564 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Naman v. Sylveen Realty Co.

Case Details

Full title:ISSA M. NAMAN, Appellant, v. SYLVEEN REALTY CO. et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 18, 1995

Citations

222 A.D.2d 564 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
636 N.Y.S.2d 344

Citing Cases

FPKT, LLC v. Paradise Pillows, Inc.

( See RPAPL § 735.) Although "reasonable application" does not require the same degree of effort as "due…

YB Assocs., LLC v. Mount Vernon Soc. Adult Day Care Ctr., LLC

Landlord therefore argues that since no alternative address for service upon respondent is delineated in the…