Riverside Syndicate, Inc. v Saltzman

Riverside Syndicate, Inc. v Saltzman 2008 NY Slip Op 02482 [49 AD3d 402] March 18, 2008 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Riverside Syndicate, Inc., Respondent,
v
Eric Saltzman, Also Known as Eric F. Saltzman, et al., Appellants, et al., Respondents.

—[*1] Vernon & Ginsburg, LLP, New York City (Darryl M. Vernon of counsel), for appellants.

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., New York City (Michael E. Feinstein of counsel), for respondent.

Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department, entered May 8, 2007, which reversed an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Michelle D. Schreiber, J.), entered on or about January 20, 2006, granting respondents' motions to dismiss the petitions on the basis that timely service under RPAPL 733 (1) was not effected, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motions to dismiss the petitions granted.

Landlord failed to "complete" service of the notice of petitions and petitions by filing proof of service (RPAPL 735 [2] [b]) at least five days prior to the date the petitions were noticed to be heard (see RPAPL 733 [1]). A summary proceeding is a special proceeding "governed entirely by statute . . . and it is well established that there must be strict compliance with the statutory requirements to give the court jurisdiction" (Berkeley Assoc. Co. v Di Nolfi, 122 AD2d 703, 705 [1986], lv dismissed 69 NY2d 804 [1987]; MSG Pomp Corp. v Doe, 185 AD2d 798 [1992]). Thus, the court should have granted respondents' motions to dismiss the petitions. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Williams, Buckley and Acosta, JJ. [See 15 Misc 3d 138(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 50925(U).]