LIEB BLOG

Legal Analysts

Wednesday, August 01, 2018

Service Requirements when Evicting a Tenant


When a landlord seeks to evict a tenant, the landlord needs to ensure compliance with service requirements. 

In New York, there are three ways that service is typically effectuated: (1) personal delivery (2) nail and mail; or (3) substituted service. 

When selecting a hearing date for the eviction proceeding, landlords must be mindful of the 5 and 12 Rule, as set forth in RPAPL §733The rule states that the tenant must be served no fewer than five days, but no more than twelve days prior to the hearing date. However, when is service complete?  

Although the rules vary slightly between the Housing and Justice Courts, generally speaking, the date the tenant is served does not count; the clock starts the date after the tenant was served.

However, the date of the hearing does count.

Putting it all together - if the hearing date is scheduled for a Wednesday, the last date to complete service would be the Friday before.

Also, if the final day of service falls on a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday, the time to complete service is extended to the next business day.

Lastly – don’t ever serve the lawsuit on a Sunday or other religious holiday as this is prohibited by law.

Monday, July 30, 2018

Luxury Has Rules: Landscaper Licensing and Payment Info East Enders Must Know

Not every business can landscape the luxurious real estate on the East End. It takes a test, some fees, and possibly multiple hours of continuing education to be permitted to manicure our yards, install our swimming pools and nestle our homes within shrubs and trees. We are serious about our landscapes on the East End.

Read the full article by Andrew Lieb, Esq. published in Danspapers here. 

Thursday, July 19, 2018

Mortgage Foreclosure SOL: 5-Prong Acceleration Test

A mortgage foreclosure lawsuit has a 6-year statute of limitations pursuant to CPLR §213(4). However, dismissal for statute of limitations purposes is largely dependent on lender error because lenders have the unilateral ability to deaccelerate a loan and thereby restart the accrual date of the statute of limitations. As a result, lenders may, through careful monitoring of the statute of limitations, avoid exposure to statute of limitations’ dismissal. To clarify, a lender cannot restart the accrual date for previously defaulted mortgage payments, which will continue to be subject to the 6-year statute of limitations and date of default accrual. Instead, a lender can only avoid statute of limitations dismissal with respect to future installment payments, which are only in default because of a lender’s prior election to contractually accelerate such payments, which is generally done by summons and complaint (e.g., pleading that lender “hereby elects to declare immediately due and payable the entire unpaid balance of principal”). It is these accelerated payments which may be deaccelerated to reset the accrual date for statute of limitations purposes and thereby preserve the lender’s right to future suit. However, whether a deacceleration election is effective has been fragmented in the case law until now.

Read the full article, be Andrew Lieb. Esq, published in The Suffolk Lawyer here.