Suderov v. Robyn Industries, Inc.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Anthony A. Scarping, Jr., J.

Respondents have made a motion to dismiss the petition on two grounds. First, that the petition was not actually signed by the petitioner, Phyllis P. Suderov. Second, that pursuant to RPAPL 735 (2) the petition and proof of service were not filed with the court within three days after service upon the respondents.

The facts of this case are as follows: Petitioner on Thursday, October 31, 1985, had personally served upon the parties the notice of petition and petition to recover possession of real property for nonpayment. The notice of petition…