Teitelbaum v. Rand

• Decision Date: 05 November 2022
• Docket Number: Index No. LT- 316629-22
• Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 34439 (U)
• Parties: Basha Teitelbaum Petitioner v. Michael Elimelech Rand, Nina Rand 1550 43rd Street Basement Brooklyn, New York 11219 Respondent.
• Court: New York Civil Court

1

2022 NY Slip Op 34439(U)

Basha Teitelbaum Petitioner
v.
Michael Elimelech Rand, Nina Rand 1550 43rd Street Basement Brooklyn, New York 11219 Respondent.

Index No. LT- 316629-22

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County

November 5, 2022

Unpublished Opinion

2

DECISION/ORDER

HANNAH COHEN, JUDGE

Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of respondent's motion to dismiss and ensuing opposition and reply.

Papers	Numbered
Notice of Motion	1
Opposition	2
Reply	3

Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision and Order on this Motion is as follows:

Petitioner commenced this holdover proceeding by service of a ninety day notice of termination. The premises is located in a building with less than six units and is not subject to any regulation.

Respondent appeared and seeks by motion to dismiss on the following grounds: (1) "never legally served" the notice of termination; (2) respondent does not know who the petitioner is; (3)

3

incorrect name of the respondent; (4) address on the affidavit of service of the notice of termination has the wrong zip code; (5) service of notice of petition and petition was attempted on March 25, 2022 at 8:48 pm, on the Sabbath and is thus invalid service; (6) no notices were affixed to his door; (7) never received any mailings at either mailing addresses and respondent has no mailbox; (8) managing agent, who is a party placed petition and court notice under his door and this was improper.

Respondent argues that attempted service on March 25, 2022 at 8:48 pm, Friday night, after sundown on the Sabbath was improper service and therefore petitioner only attempted one legal attempt at personal service on March 28, 2022. Petitioner opposed and notes that respondent never stated he was home and submits an affidavit from the agent that he was not even aware respondent observed the Sabbath. In reply respondent attaches numerous text messages between himself and the agent which clearly demonstrates that the agent was aware that respondent is a religious observant person of the jewish faith who prays regularly at the synagogue. Therefore the agent would have known that respondent observed the Sabbath.

Based upon the text messages, the petitioner's agent, himself an observant Jewish person, was aware that respondent was also an observant Jewish person. This knowledge is imputed upon the...