Opinion
570926/02
Decided May 31, 2005.
Landlord appeals 1) from an order of the Civil Court, New York County, entered October 2, 2003 (Paul G. Feinman, J.) which granted tenant's motion to dismiss the petition in a nonpayment summary proceeding, and 2) from an order of the same court and Judge, entered on or about December 18, 2003, which granted landlord's motion for renewal and reargument but adhered to the original determination.
Order entered October 2, 2003 (Paul G. Feinman, J.) reversed, with $10 costs, motion denied and petition reinstated. Appeal from order entered on or about December 18, 2003 (Paul G. Feinman, J.) dismissed, without costs, as academic.
PRESENT: HON. LUCINDO SUAREZ, P.J., HON. PHYLLIS GANGEL-JACOB, HON. MARTIN SCHOENFELD, Justices.
The petitioner landlord's May 15, 2003 written rent demand, which included a "Summary of Arrears" setting forth the aggregate amounts of base rent, additional rent, and other charges allegedly owed by tenant pursuant to the parties' commercial lease agreement, as well as a 20-page "Tenant History" itemizing on a monthly basis the rental amounts claimed to be due, satisfied the requirements of RPAPL 711(2) and was a sufficient predicate for the maintenance of this nonpayment summary proceeding. "Consonant with the modern view that pleadings and threshold notices in summary proceedings are to be accorded the same liberal construction as papers in civil litigation generally, so that cases may be disposed of on the merits, we discern no defect — and certainly no 'jurisdictional defect' — which would preclude this . . . nonpayment proceeding from going forward." ( Brusco v. Miller, 167 Misc 2d 54, 55 [internal citations omitted].) The substantive dispute over the amount of rent arrears and other charges actually owed, which in part hinges on the proper interpretation of a November 1996 Bankruptcy Court stipulation, is a matter inappropriately addressed in the context of the tenant's dismissal motion targeted to the legal sufficiency of the underlying rent demand, which, as indicated, afforded tenant "actual notice of the alleged amount due and of the period for which such claim is made" ( id., quoting Schwartz v. Weiss-Newell, 87 Misc 2d 558, 561).
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.