Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Citation
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Parent Document
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Effective Date
- 2003-02-25
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6346658/chan-v-adossa/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (27)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
Full Text
709 charsAlthough there is language in some of our cases which indicates that the lack of a proper MDR statement deprives the court of “subject matter jurisdiction” over a holdover proceeding (Santos v Aquasvivas, supra; Raicovi v Tobin, NYLJ, Oct. 23, 1995, at 29, col 2 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]; cf. Mandel v Pitkowsky, 102 Misc 2d 478 [1979], affd 76 AD2d 807 [1st Dept 1980] [where no amendment is sought to include MDR allegations in holdover petition, “proceeding fails”]), it is clear that the requirement that a petition brought pursuant to RPAPL 711 include the MDR allegation was not intended to and cannot affect the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, particularly with respect to holdover proceedings.