This case was issued on February 15. What I find interesting is that the homeowner made this motion on December 4, 2018 and the court, after denying the motion, set it down for trial for March 7. So only 90 days of delay were obtained – could this 90 day extra have been stipulated to by the parties instead of incurring the costs of the motion?
Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Cordova, LT-006410-18NA, (N.Y. Dist. Ct. 2019) :
“[A] corporation must necessarily act by agents, and they, ‘like natural persons, are bound only by the acts and contracts of their agents done and made within the scope of their authority” ( Jacobus v. Jamestown Mantel Co., 149 App. Div. 356, 362, 134 N.Y.S. 418 affd. 211 NY 154, 105 N.E. 210 quoting Alexander v. Cauldwell, NY 480, 485).”
“In addition, the attorney signing the notice to quit must have documented authority to act for the landlord via the lease or the notice will be rendered defective. Washington Mutual Home Loans, Inc. v. Calderon, 9/25/2002 N.Y.L.J. 23, col 3 (Queens Co. Ct.) (quoting
Siegel v. Kentucky Fried Chicken of Long Island, Inc., 108 AD2d 218, 488 N.Y.S.2d 744 (2d Dep’t 1985), order aff’d, 67 NY2d 792, 501 N.Y.S.2d 317, 492 N.E.2d 390 (1986): ‘A notice of termination signed by an agent or attorney who is not named in the lease as authorized to act for the landlord in such matters, and which is not authenticated or accompanied by proof of the latter’s authority to bind the landlord in giving of such notice, is legally insufficient to terminate the tenancy.’).”