Brusco v. Braun, 199 A.D.2d 27 (1993)

Citation: Brusco v. Braun, 199 A.D.2d 27 (1993)
Parent Document: Brusco v. Braun, 199 A.D.2d 27 (1993)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 1993-12-07
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6103695/brusco-v-braun/ ↗

Full Text

1,144 chars

Nor is the determination in Park Holding sustainable under *31the reasoning applied by this Court in Joosten v Gale (129 AD2d 531). The Park Holding opinion notes (supra, at 44) that the petition in the underlying summary proceeding was verified by the petitioner’s attorney on information and belief pursuant to RPAPL 741, and not by the landlord. In support of its conclusion that the pleadings will not sustain the entry of judgment, the court seizes upon the objection articulated in Joosten v Gale (supra)—that a pleading verified by one without personal knowledge of the facts is not a proper basis for entry of judgment by default. However, this conclusion presumes the relevance of CPLR 3215 to a proceeding brought under the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, and specifically under RPAPL 732. Applying the rules of statutory construction to the conflicting provisions, it is clear that CPLR 3215 is inconsistent with, and thus superseded by, the provisions of RPAPL 732 (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 397), and the holding in Joosten is therefore inapposite to the proceeding before the court in Park Holding.

Other Sections in This Document (33)

Full Text