Legal Opinion
161 Williams Associates v. Coffee
Civil Court of the City of New York
Decided December 16, 1983PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Lewis R. Friedman, J.
These four cases present an unusual question of the law of service of process under RPAPL 735 (subd 1): what does the phrase “a conspicuous part of the property sought to be recovered” mean?
The facts, as the court has found them, are relatively simple. The building currently consists of several loft tenants each of whom occupies an entire floor. The elevator to *38three of the floors in question, 2, 5, and 9, opens directly into the loft. When tenants lock their “front” doors, the elevator will stop on the floor but the door will not open; a special key…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Greene v. LindseySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- F. I. duPont, Glore Forgan & Co. v. ChenNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Palumbo v. Estate of ClarkCivil Court of the City of New York · 1978
- Velazquez v. ThompsonDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1970
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- New York City Housing Authority v. FountainCivil Court of the City of New York · 1997
- 91 Fifth Avenue Corp. v. Brookhill Property Holdings LLCCivil Court of the City of New York · 2016