Eight Assocs. v. Hynes, 481 N.E.2d 555 (N.Y. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Eight Assocs. v. Hynes, 481 N.E.2d 555 (N.Y. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
40 citation events (33 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Modi Realty, Inc. v. Sambula-Colon (nyappterm, 2025-04-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited "see" Modi Realty, Inc. v. Sambula-Colon (3×)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
It is well settled that "at least two attempts at personal service are needed to satisfy the 'reasonable application' standard" of RPAPL 735 (1) ( 809-811 Kings Highway, LLC v Pulse Laser Skin Care , 2009 NY Slip Op 52121[U], *1-2; see Eight Assoc. v Hynes , 102 AD2d 746, 748 [1984], affd 65 NY2d 739 [1985]).
cited Cited "see" Chun Zhe Qu v. Min Suk Choi
Civ. Ct. NYC, Queens Cty. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Eight Associates v. Hynes , 102 AD2d 746 , 747 [1st Dept 1984], affd 65 NY2d 739 [1985].
discussed Cited "see" Moreta v. Cestero
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
Control Bd., 275 AD2d 284 [1st Dept 2000]; Alexander Smith Carpet v Walter Arnold, Inc., 94 AD2d 643 [1st Dept 1983]; see generally Eight Assoc. v Hynes, 102 AD2d 746 [1st Dept 1984], affd 65 NY2d 739 [1985].) These cases are not conclusive of the sufficiency of HPD’s service of the notice of termination, as personal jurisdiction is not at issue.
discussed Cited "see" Martine Associates LLC v. Minck
N.Y. App. Term. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
As a rule, at least two attempts at personal service, one during normal working hours and one attempt when a person working normal hours could reasonably be expected to be home, are required to satisfy the “reasonable application” standard (RPAPL 735 [1]; see Eight Assoc. v Hynes, 102 AD2d 746 , 748 [1984], affd 65 NY2d 739, 740 [1985]; Hynes v Buchbinder, 147 AD2d 371 [1989]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Eight Associates, Appellant,
v.
Michael Hynes, Respondent
New York Court of Appeals.
Jun 6, 1985.
481 N.E.2d 555
1985 N.Y. LEXIS 15131
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Jeffrey R. Metz and Robert D. Goldstein for appellant., Spiros A. Tsimbinos for respondent., Gary M. Rosenberg and Luise A. Barack for Community Housing Improvement Program, Inc., amicus curiae., Kalman Finkel, John E. Kirklin, Scott A. Rosenberg, David W. Wechsler and Thomas P. Kerrigan for The Legal Aid Society of New York, amicus curiae., Andrew Scherer, William A. Herbert, Robert Levy and Joseph A. Ruskay for New York Civil Liberties Union and another, amici curiae.
Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye and Kassal.
Cited by 190 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question not answered as unnecessary.

The question before the court is whether the Appellate Division erred as a matter of law in finding that the “reasonable application” requirement of RPAPL 735 (1) had not been met by appellant landlord by a single attempt to make service on respondent tenant at noon on a weekday before affixing the notice of petition and petition to the apartment door and mailing a second copy by certified mail. Put another way, the question before us is whether, on this record, there was demonstrated “reasonable application” as a matter of law. Viewing this case in that manner, we conclude there was no error of law, and the order should therefore be affirmed.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye and Kassal * concur in memorandum; Judges Alexander and Titone taking no part.

Order affirmed, etc.

*

Designated pursuant to NY Constitution, article VI, § 2.