Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Terminal Drago Shine Stands, Inc.

*11OPINION OF THE COURT

Harvey M. Sklaver, J.

In this holdover proceeding, the respondent contested the jurisdiction of the court over the respondent, asserting that the notice of petition and petition were not served in accordance with RPAPL 735. For reasons which follow, the court disagrees. Because of the unusual facts surrounding the nature of the agreement between the parties, the premises sought to be recovered and the manner of service, novel questions of law were presented and, accordingly, an extended recitation of the facts is needed in order to understand the issues presented.

Petitioner…