Majority
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in transferring the instant action to the Justice who presided over a prior action involving many of the same parties for the same or similar relief (see Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin
The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint. It demonstrated that the notices it sent to the plaintiffs in September 2009 pursuant to Real Property Law § 233 (b) (6) (i) complied with the requirements of that statute. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 , 324 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P, Leventhal, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Kramer v. International 800 Telecom Corp. 190 AD2d 538 at 539 p. 702
- Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital 68 NY2d 320 at 324 p. 702