Opinion
570532/04.
Decided January 14, 2005.
Tenant appeals from an order of the Civil Court, New York County, entered August 20, 2004 (Donna G. Recant, J.) which upon the grant of landlord's motion to renew and reargue, denied the tenant's previously granted motion to dismiss the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.
Order entered August 20, 2004 (Donna G. Recant, J.) affirmed, with $10 costs.
PRESENT: HON. WILLIAM P. McCOOE, J.P., HON. PHYLLIS GANGEL-JACOB, HON. MARTIN SCHOENFELD, Justices.
The landlord's motion, insofar as it sought renewal of the prior dismissal order, was properly granted. "Although renewal motions generally should be based on newly discovered facts that could not be offered on the prior motion ( see CPLR 2221[e]), courts have discretion to relax this requirement and to grant such a motion in the interest of justice" ( Mejia v. Nanni, 307 AD2d 870, 871). On reconsideration, the court properly denied tenant's previously granted CPLR 3211(a)(5) motion to dismiss the holdover proceeding, since the newly submitted affidavit raises triable issues as to the bona fides of the tenant's defense of payment. Moreover, any infirmity in the petition's description of the demised commercial premises is correctable by amendment and does not rise to the level of a jurisdictional defect ( see Ripple's of Clearview, Inc. v. LeHaure Assocs., 88 AD2d 120, 123-124; see also New York City Hous. Auth. v. Jackson, 88 Misc 2d 121). We reach no other issue.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.