People v. Rosado, 102 A.D.2d 746 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Rosado, 102 A.D.2d 746 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case · …at least two attempts at personal service are needed to satisfy the 'reasonable application' standard at p. 748 ⚠ not in text
57 citation events (37 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Amalgamated Dwellings Inc. v. East Side Kosher Inc.
N.Y. App. Term. · 2025 · confidence medium
Restoration relief is unavailable because following respondents' eviction and its failure to comply with an order conditionally staying the reletting of the premises, a new tenant is now in possession who has not been made a party to this proceeding ( see Eight Assoc. v Hynes , 102 AD2d 746, 748 [1984], affd 65 NY2d 739 [1985]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 600 W. 218th St. Assoc. LLC v. Proano
Civ. Ct. NYC, NY Cty. · 2024 · confidence medium
Eight Assocs. v. Hynes, 102 AD2d 746, 748 (1st Dep't 1984), aff'd, 65 NY2d 739 , (1985); 322 West 47th Street HDFC v. Loo, 153 AD3d 1143 (1st Dep't 2017), leave to appeal dismissed, 30 NY3d 1084 (2018).
cited Cited as authority (rule) 51 Middle Road LLC v. Myers
Greenport Just. Ct. · 2017 · confidence medium
(Eight Assoc. v Hynes, 102 AD2d at 746; Brooklyn Hgts. v Gliwa, 92 AD2d at 602 ; County of Nassau v Letosky, 34 AD3d 414, 415 [2d Dept 2006]; Hoskob Assoc.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cornhill LLC v. Sposato (2×)
nyroccityct · 2017 · confidence medium
To obtain repossession of property in a summary proceeding, a landlord must demonstrate “reasonable application” in its prior attempts to serve process on the tenant personally before resorting to conspicuous “nail and mail” service is permitted. {See RPAPL 735 [1]; Eight Assoc. v Hynes, 102 AD2d at 748; Brooklyn Hgts.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Manhattan Embassy Co. v. Embassy Parking Corp. (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. City Civ. Ct. · 1995 · confidence medium
(Eight As socs. v Hynes, supra, 102 AD2d, at 748; Hospitality Enters. v Fuego Rest.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ancott Realty, Inc. v. Gramercy Stuyvesant Independent Democrats (2×)
N.Y. City Civ. Ct. · 1985 · confidence medium
In Eight Assoc. v Hynes ( 102 AD2d 746, 747 [1st Dept 1984]), the court held that: “[0]ne attempt to serve process during ‘normal working hours’ did not satisfy the ‘reasonable application’ standard set forth in RPAPL 735.” This court finds that the present case, although involving a commercial rather than a residential tenant, falls within the purview of Eight Assoc. v Hynes (supra).
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…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Edwin Rosado
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 21, 1984.
102 A.D.2d 746
Published

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Burton Hecht, J.), rendered on April 9,1981, unanimously affirmed. 11 Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. (See Anders v California, 386 US 738; People v Saunders, 52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas and Alexander, JJ.