[*1]
Back Glen, LLC v Giresi
2009 NY Slip Op 50232(U) [22 Misc 3d 133(A)]
Decided on February 11, 2009
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected in part through February 23, 2009; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on February 11, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ
2008-823 Q C.

Back Glen, LLC, Respondent,

against

Dominick Giresi and ANNAMARIA GIRESI, Appellants, -and- "JOHN DOE & JANE DOE" BEING ANY SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST TO JANINE IORIO, Undertenants.


Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Charles S. Lopresto, J.), dated September 26, 2007. The order denied a motion by Dominick Giresi and Annamaria Giresi to vacate a default final judgment and warrant, to dismiss the petition, and to be restored to possession.


Order reversed without costs and motion by Dominick Giresi and Annamaria Giresi to vacate the default final judgment and warrant, to dismiss the petition, and to be restored to possession granted.

In this holdover proceeding, petitioner seeks to recover what it describes as a 1,660-square-foot parcel of land situated adjacent to and east of a property owned by appellants Dominick Giresi and Annamaria Giresi at 88-74 78th Avenue. Petitioner alleges that it terminated appellants' month-to-month tenancy with respect to the subject property. The notice of petition and petition were served by conspicuous place service by affixing them to an entrance door of one of the residential apartments on the property owned by appellants at 88-74 78th Avenue, and by mailing to the residential property. Since RPAPL 735 requires that the papers be affixed to a "conspicuous part of the property sought to be recovered," and since service was effectuated at the property adjacent to the property sought to be recovered, and not at the property [*2]sought to be recovered, jurisdiction was not obtained. Accordingly, appellants' motion to vacate the default final judgment and warrant, to dismiss the petition, and to be restored to possession should have been granted. We pass on no other issue.

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 11, 2009