47-05 Ctr. SPE L.L.C. v. Hack, 2025 NY Slip Op 25129 (2025)

Citation: 47-05 Ctr. SPE L.L.C. v. Hack, 2025 NY Slip Op 25129 (2025)
Parent Document: 47-05 Ctr. SPE L.L.C. v. Hack, 2025 NY Slip Op 25129 (2025)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2025-05-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10594925/47-05-ctr-spe-llc-v-hack/ ↗

Full Text

1,491 chars

Also unavailing is Respondent's objection to the admission of Petitioner's nonrenewal notice and the attendant affidavit of its service. To the extent Respondent argues that Petitioner's witness needed to testify to his personal familiarity with the service of the notice, this argument fails because Respondent did not challenge the service of notice in his answer and therefore waived the defense (see West Haverstraw Preserv. LP v Diaz, 58 Misc 3d 150 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2018]; Marmon Realty Group, LLC v Khalil, 72 Misc 3d 136 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2021]; City of New York v Jones, 1992 NY Lexis 706 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 1992]). While proof of service of a facially sufficient notice was part of Petitioner's prima facie case (see 1646 Union v Simpson, 62 Misc 3d 142 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &13th Jud Dists 2019]; Mautner-Glick Corp. v. Glazer, 148 AD3d 515, [*4]516 [1st Dept 2017]; W54-7 LLC v. Schick, 14 Misc 3d 49, 50 [App Term, 1st Dept 2006]), in the absence of a credible challenge to service in a responsive pleading or at trial, Petitioner was entitled to rely on its facially sufficient affidavit of service as prima facie proof of service (see George Douleveris & Son, Inc. v P.J. 37 Food Corp., 39 Misc 3d 1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]; Citi Land Servs., LLC v McDowell, 30 Misc 3d 145 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011); Engel v Lichterman, 62 NY2d 943 [1984]).

Other Sections in This Document (28)

Full Text