After purchasing DT’s interests in a cooperative apartment at a foreclosure sale, AD sought to evict DT from her unit.
When a holdover proceeding was later filed, the New York County Civil Court ended up dismissing the case, finding that a proper predicate notice of termination hadn't been issued prior to the proceeding’s commencement.
On appeal, the Appellate Term, First Department, thought that the dismissal was inappropriate because it was based on an argument that hadn't been advanced by any of the parties to the case.
Since the outcome was predicated on an “unraised and unbriefed predicate notice issue,” the AT1 was of the view that AD was unfairly deprived of an “opportunity to be heard, thereby offending traditional [notion] of fair play.”
As a result, the appellate court reversed the dismissal, reinstated the petition, and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing AD to address the notice issue and for the court to consider the remaining motions.
Think the judge will play for keeps, now?
# # #