Kushnir v Hartman

[*1] Kushnir v Hartman 2018 NY Slip Op 51445(U) Decided on October 11, 2018 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 11, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : ANTHONY MARANO, P.J., JERRY GARGUILO, JAMES V. BRANDS, JJ
2017-693 N C

Levi Kushnir, Respondent,

against

Robin B. Hartman and Michael Hartman, Appellants, et al., Occupants.

Lester & Associates, P.C. (Gabriel R. Korinman and Roy Lester of counsel), for appellants. Clark & Amadio, P.C. (Alfred J. Amadio of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a final judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (James M. Darcy, J.), entered April 7, 2017. The final judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded petitioner possession and the sum of $14,010 in a summary proceeding brought pursuant to RPAPL 713 (5).

ORDERED that the final judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this summary proceeding by a purchaser in foreclosure (see RPAPL 713 [5]), occupant Michael Hartman was personally served at the premises with a 10-day notice to quit and an attached certified copy of the referee's deed. At the same time, a copy of the notice to quit with an attached certified copy of the referee's deed was served upon occupant Robin B. Hartman by service upon Michael Hartman, a person of suitable age and discretion (see RPAPL 713 [5]; 735). Following a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded petitioner a final judgment of possession and the sum of $14,010. The court declined to address the validity of the underlying foreclosure sale and held that, contrary to these occupants' objection, the referee's deed had been properly "exhibited" to occupant Robin B. Hartman within the meaning of RPAPL 713 (5).

As the District Court correctly refused to address the validity of the foreclosure sale, the only remaining issue on appeal is whether substituted service of a notice to quit with an attached certified copy of the deed satisfies the exhibition requirement of RPAPL 713 (5).

The Appellate Term for the Second, Eleventh and Thirteenth Judicial Districts has recently held in Plotch v Dellis (60 Misc 3d 1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]) that service of a certified copy of a deed by means other than personal delivery satisfies the exhibition requirement of RPAPL 713 (5). For the reasons set forth in Plotch, we agree with the District Court's determination that the referee's deed was properly "exhibited" to occupant Robin B. Hartman.

Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed.

MARANO, P.J., GARGUILO and BRANDS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: October 11, 2018