Facchin v. Pekich

• Decision Date: 15 October 1996
• Citation: Facchin v. Pekich, 648 N.Y.S.2d 928, 232 A.D.2d 447 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
• Parties: Joseph FACCHIN, Appellant, v. Peter A. PEKICH, Respondent, et al., Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 928

648 N.Y.S.2d 928

232 A.D.2d 447

Joseph FACCHIN, Appellant, v.Peter A. PEKICH, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division Second Department.

Oct. 15, 1996.

Robert P. O'Brien & Associates, P.C., Jericho (Todd J. Manister, of counsel), for appellant.

Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, LLP, East Meadow (Murray Greenberg, Donna-Marie Korth, and Jodi S. Hoffman, of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to determine adverse claims to real property, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Roberto, J.), dated September 19, 1995, which, upon an order granting the motion of the defendantPeter A. Pekich for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint, granted judgment in favor of Pekich on his counterclaim, and declared Pekich to be the owner of the real property in question

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The counterclaiming defendantPeter A. Pekich submitted proof that a notice to redeem was mailed to an appropriate address by certified mail, return receipt requested, on November 21, 1991.This proof includes a "domestic return receipt" reflecting delivery of the notice to redeem to the address in question on November 25, 1991.The plaintiff claims that the signature on the postal receipt is not his, and denies ever having received the notice to redeem.

We agree with the Supreme Court that there is no issue of fact which requires a trial.Service of the notice was in accordance with the provisions of the governing local law, and this local law complies with due process (see, Nassau County Administrative Code § 5-51.0;see also, Beckman v. Greentree Sec., 87...