Opinion
2007-544 N C.
Decided December 14, 2007.
Appeal from an order of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Scott Fairgrieve, J.), dated January 16, 2007. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied a motion by occupant Guramrit Hanspal to dismiss the proceeding (see 14 Misc 3d 1217 [A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50056[U]).
Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., TANENBAUM and SCHEINKMAN, JJ.
In this summary proceeding commenced by notice of petition and petition dated September 18, 2006, petitioner, a purchaser in foreclosure, seeks to evict appellant Guramrit Hanspal, the former owner of the house, and his family ( see RPAPL 713). Appellant moved to dismiss, alleging that the 10-day notice to vacate required by RPAPL 713 was defective because it left blank the date by which he had to vacate. According to the undisputed averments of the affidavit of service, after the people in the house refused to open the door, the notice, which was clearly entitled "Ten (10) Day Notice To Vacate," was affixed to the premises' door on August 21, 2006, and mailed the next day.
In our view, the court below correctly concluded that the 10-day notice was not rendered fatally defective by petitioner's omission to fill in the date by which appellant was required to vacate ( see Helping Out People Everywhere v Deich, 160 Misc 2d 1052 [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists 1994]; A Z Realty Co. v Murphy, NYLJ, June 19, 1991 [Civ Ct, Bronx County]; see also Muss Sons v Rozany, 170 Misc 2d 890 [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 1996]; but cf. Ditmas Arms Assoc. v Doe, NYLJ, Aug. 11, 1988 [Civ Ct, Kings County]). We note that the statute does not specify any requirements with respect to the contents of the 10-day notice, that the notice was clearly entitled "Ten (10) Day Notice to Vacate," and that appellant could not reasonably have believed anything other than that he had 10 days to vacate from the date the notice was affixed to the door, after the people inside the house refused to open the door. Accordingly, appellant's motion to dismiss was properly denied.
Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and Scheinkman, JJ., concur.