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 may act as agent for another corporation. See 3 AmJur 2d Agency §12. A corporation must necessarily act through agents within the scope of their authority. See Bank of New York v. UBS Warburg LLC, 4 AD3d 112, 774 NYS2d:

“[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 HSBC Bank USA v. Jeffers, 30 Misc 3d 1209(A), 958 NYS2d 646 (Table), 2011 WL 91379 (Dist Ct, Nassau County 2011), this Court invalidated a 10 day notice to quit because there was no indication that Joyce Reynolds had signing authority. Missing from the 10 day notice to quit was an indication that Joyce Reynolds was employed by Wells Fargo and her position with same.

The case at bar is distinguishable because the 10 day notice executed by Jacqueline S. Michaelson clearly indicates that she was employed by Ocwen as a Contract Management Coordinator. As noted above a corporation necessarily acts through agents. Thus, the 10 day notice served in the case is valid.

Respondent claims that the Kentucky Fried Chicken applies. This rule is summarized in Residential Landlord-Tenant Law in New York §8:240 entitled “Notice to Quit—What It Must Contain” which states:

“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.’).”

In Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Mark Resnik, 24 Misc 2d 1238(A), (Table) 2009 WL 2527279 (Dist Ct, Nassau County 2009), this Court dismissed the 10 day notice executed by an attorney because of lack of proof of his authority to sign same for the principal. See also GMAC Mortgage Corp. v. Toureau, 15 Misc 3d 1139(A), 841 NYS2d 820 (Dist Ct, Nassau County 2007) holding that notice to quit executed by the Petitioner’s attorney was insufficient because there was no evidence that the attorney had attached an authorization to authenticate his authority to act on behalf of the principal.

In the case at bar, it is undisputed that the Limited Power of Attorney was attached to the 10 day Notice to Quit. This Limited Power of Attorney authenticates Ocwen’s authority to act. Thus, the Kentucky Fried Chicken rule is inapplicable to the factual circumstances at bar.

U.S. Bank v. Ballin, 158 AD3d 786, 72 NYS3d (2d Dept 2018) cited by Respondent as support for dismissal, is not applicable here. Suffice to say that Ballin dealt with the sufficiency of an affidavit for the consideration of business records on a summary judgment motion.”