Rome v. White
| Decision Date | 12 June 1975 |
| Citation | 369 N.Y.S.2d 609,82 Misc.2d 356 |
| Parties | Irving L. ROME, Petitioner, v. Dean C. WHITE, Respondent. |
| Court | New York City Court |
Jaspan, Kaplan & Levin, Garden City, for petitioner.
R. Harold Paltrow, Bayside, for respondent.
The issue presented herein is one of first impression.
On November 26, 1974, certain premises, together with the improvements thereon, were sold to Till Holding Company through a foreclosure sale conducted pursuant to a Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale issued on October 1, 1974 by a Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. A Referee's Deed to the property was duly recorded on December 9, 1974 in the Office of the Clerk of the County of New York. The petitioner then instituted the instant action in order to obtain possession of the property purchased at the foreclosure sale, contending that the respondent continues in possession of the said premises without the permission of the petitioner and contrary to a notice to quit.
At the conclusion of the respondent's case, both sides rested. The respondent thereupon moved to dismiss the petition for failure to comply with section 713 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law. According to this section:
'A special proceeding may be maintained under this article after a ten-day notice to quit has been served upon the respondent in the manner prescribed in section 735, upon the following grounds:
.
The deed exhibited in the present case was photostatic copy. The respondent claims that only the original deed is sufficient to meet the requirements of section 713(5) of the R.P.A.P.L. and that, therefore, the petition is defective. The petitioner argues that the statute at issue is aimed at providing notice to a person whose eviction is being sought that the party attempting to oust him is the rightful owner and that this purpose is satisfied through use of a photostatic copy.
However, section 312 of McKinney's Statutes states that: 'Generally, a statute which takes the property of one person without his consent for the benefit of another is in derogation of common right and should be strictly construed,' and proceedings designed to accomplish such result must be strictly pursued or the owner will not be divested of his property (Stilwell v. Swarthout, 81...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
1644 Broadway LLC v. Jimenez
...the petition for failure to exhibit the referee's deed but instead exhibited the Special/Limited Warranty Deed; Rome v. White, 82 Misc.2d 356, 369 N.Y.S.2d 609 (Civ.Ct. of N.Y., 1975) finding that service of a photostatic copy of the referee's deed was fatal; but see Hudson City Savings Ban......
-
1644 Broadway LLC v. Jimenez
...the petition for failure to exhibit the referee's deed but instead exhibited the Special/Limited Warranty Deed; Rome v. White, 82 Misc.3d 356, 369 N.Y.S.2d 609 (Civ.Ct. of N.Y., 1975) finding that service of a photostatic copy of the referee's deed was fatal; but see Hudson City Savings Ban......
-
IFS Props. LLC v. Willins
...the order is reversed and appellants' motion to dismiss the petition as against them is granted. The Court in Rome v. White, 82 Misc.3d 356, 369 N.Y.S.2d 609 (Civ. Ct. of New York, 1975), held that service of a photostatic copy of the referee's deed was fatal and there must be strict compli......
-
Plotch v. Dellis
...because of the difficulties attendant in exhibiting an original deed, and in response to the decision in Rome v. White, 82 Misc. 2d 356, 369 N.Y.S.2d 609 (Civ. Ct., N.Y. County 1975) disallowing exhibition of a photostatic copy of the deed (see Sponsor's Mem, Bill Jacket , L 1976, ch 642), ......