Kantar Investment v. Giacchetto

(App. Term 1st Dept. 10/5/00)

We represented: Petitioner

Stanley Parness, P.J., William Davis and Lucindo Suarez, JJ.

DECISION and ORDER Respondents Giacchetto and Renzi appeal from an order of the Civil Court, New York County, dated July 29, 1999 (Maria Milin, J.) awarding petitioner a final judgment of possession and related relief on its motion for summary judgment and denied respondents' cross motion to amend the answer, conduct discovery and for partial summary judgment in a holdover summary proceeding.

PER CURIAM:

Order dated July 29, 1999 (Maria Milin, J.) affirmed.

The court below correctly determined that petitioner was a proper party entitled to maintain this residential holdover proceeding under RPAPL § 721, subd. 10. In particular, petitioner established that it purchased the cooperative apartment premises at issue, possessed the proprietary lease and was named as owner on the shares of stock appurtenant thereto. In addition, the petition was properly brought in petitioner's own name and not in the name of petitioner's agent or attorney-in-fact.

Contrary to appellants' argument, petitioner, as proprietary lessee, was not required to plead the multiple dwelling status of the building (Eng v. Roth, NYLJ, February 8, 1982, at 6, col 1 [App Term, 1st Dept]) and the petition itself was not otherwise jurisdictionally defective. The record further establishes that conspicuous place service was properly effected upon appellants under RPAPL § 735 (see, Eight Assocs. v. Hynes, 102 AD2d 746, aff'd 65 NY2d 739). Petitioner was not required to attempt personal service at appellant Giacchetto's place of business, located on a different floor of the same building (#8C), before resorting to conspicuous place service at appellants' residence (#12A).

Since the term of appellants' sublease expired and no substantive defenses to the proceeding have been raised, summary judgment to petitioner was properly awarded.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.