Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Leonard SACCHERI, Jr., Appellant, v. CATHEDRAL PROPERTIES CORP., Respondent.
Order unanimously reversed with $10 costs, motion to dismiss denied and matter remanded for further proceedings.
In this RPAPL 713(10) proceeding commenced by a proprietary lessee after his shares were sold in foreclosure and he was locked out of his cooperative apartment, the District Court dismissed the petition on the ground that petitioner lacked “standing” because he was merely the former owner of shares in the cooperative corporation. This was error. An unlawful entry or detainer proceeding is maintainable where “petitioner was peaceably in actual possession at the time of the forcible or unlawful entry or in constructive possession at the time of the forcible or unlawful detainer” (RPAPL 713 [10] ). Thus, petitioner's “standing” to maintain this proceeding does not depend on his status as a former owner of the shares but on his having been in constructive possession, through his subtenant, at the time of the allegedly unlawful detainer (see, Lowman v. Sprague, 73 Hun. 408, 26 N.Y.S. 568; 2 Rasch's Landlord and Tenant-Summary Proceedings § 36:10 [Dolan 4th ed.] ). The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether the detainer was unlawful.
Contrary to petitioner's contention, respondent was entitled to use peaceable self-help to regain possession after a proper termination of the lease (Jovana Spaghetti House v. Heritage Co. of Massena, 189 A.D.2d 1041, 592 N.Y.S.2d 879; Cohen v. Carpenter, 128 App.Div. 862, 113 N.Y.S. 168; 2 Rasch's Landlord and Tenant-Summary Proceedings § 29:11 [Dolan 4th ed.] ). However, such a proper termination has not been adequately proven in respondent's papers which, inter alia, fail to include an affidavit from the person who allegedly mailed the default notice. Because respondent seeks to impose a forfeiture in strict reliance upon the letter of the lease, the proof it adduces must be strictly scrutinized to determine if the lease was properly terminated. Under the circumstances, dismissal of the petition was unwarranted.
MEMORANDUM.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: March 31, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)