Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jp Morgan Chase Bank, National Association As Successor In Interest To Washington Mutual Bank v. Guramrit Hanspal Also Known As Guramrit S. Hanspal

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts


December 7, 2012

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK,
RESPONDENT,
v.
GURAMRIT HANSPAL ALSO KNOWN AS GURAMRIT S. HANSPAL, APPELLANT,
AND JEAN CHALES, JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE,
OCCUPANTS.

Appeal from a final judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Angelo A. Delligatti, J.), entered February 10, 2011.

JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Hanspal

Appellate Term, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 7, 2012

PRESENT: NICOLAI, P.J., IANNACCI and LaSALLE, JJ

The final judgment, after a non-jury trial, awarded possession to petitioner in a summary proceeding brought pursuant to RPAPL 713 (5).

ORDERED that the final judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this summary proceeding brought pursuant to RPAPL 713 (5), Guramrit Hanspal (occupant) appeals from a final judgment which, after a non-jury trial, awarded possession to petitioner.

Contrary to occupant's contentions, the process server's failure to keep a log book and to produce it at trial does not undermine the process server's credibility, as there is no requirement that a process server outside the City of New York maintain a log book and produce it in court (General Business Law § 89-cc; Uniform Rules for NY City Civ Ct [22 NYCRR] § 208.29). No proof was introduced to show that the process server was not in compliance with his duty to maintain the records required by General Business Law § 89-u. Contrary to occupant's further contention, the inclusion in the 10-day notice to quit of language notifying occupant that he may be held liable for any damages inflicted upon the premises and for attorney's fees did not invalidate the notice, which satisfied the statutory purpose of giving occupant 10 days' notice to quit (RPAPL 713). Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., Iannacci and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: December 07, 2012

20121207

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.