Opinion
No. LT–003856–12.
2012-11-15
M.C.E. CORP., Petitioner, v. Cali XAVIER a/k/a Cali Javier, Respondent.
Wolfson & Grossman, LLP, Westbury, for Petitioner. The Law Offices of Perry Ian Tischler, P.C., Bayside, Attorney for Respondent.
Wolfson & Grossman, LLP, Westbury, for Petitioner. The Law Offices of Perry Ian Tischler, P.C., Bayside, Attorney for Respondent.
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE, J.
The following named papers numbered 1 to 3 submitted on this Motion on October 19, 2012
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦papers ¦numbered¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------+--------¦ ¦Notice of Motion and Supporting Documents ¦1 ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------+--------¦ ¦Order to Show Cause and Supporting Documents Opposition to Motion¦2 ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------+--------¦ ¦Reply Papers to Motion ¦3 ¦ +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Petitioner moves pursuant to CPLR § 3025 to amend paragraph No.8 of the Petition to read “four (4) family multiple dwelling” instead of the premises being described as commercial. Respondent opposes the application.
Pursuant to CPLR section 3025, this court grants the Petitioner's leave to amend paragraph eight (8) of the non-payment petition in this action by substituting the words to read “four (4) family multiple dwelling” instead and in the place of the presently recited word “commercial.”
In Rasch's Landlord and Tenant (4th ed), vol. 3 Section 41:36 entitled “Power of Amendment” states:
§ 2001 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules provides that at any stage of an action, the court may permit a mistake, omission, defect, or irregularity to be corrected, upon such terms as may be just, or if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced, the mistake, omission, defect or irregularity shall be disregarded. Subdivision f of § 2101of the Civil Practice Law and Rules further provides that a defect in the form of a paper, if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced, shall be disregarded by the court, and leave to correct shall be freely given.
Petitions in summary proceedings are analogous to pleadings in any other type of civil action and are held to be equally amendable. Siedlecki v. Doscher, 33 Misc.3d 18, 19, 931 N.Y.S.2d 203, 204 (App. Term 2011). The court stated in Siedlecki that the Appellate Division in the Second Department has rejected the “strict compliance” approach to jurisdiction in summary proceedings, and has stated that summary proceedings are to be treated like other civil actions. Id.
Furthermore in Jackson v. New York City Housing Authority, the court held, “A petition in a summary proceed in New York City Housing Authority is no different than a pleading in any other type of civil case. A petition which may fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or contains other pleading infirmities is capable of correction by amendment. Such a petition does not render the proceeding jurisdictionally defective.” Jackson v. New York City Housing Authority, 88 Misc.2d 121, 122, 387 N.Y.S.2d 38, 39 (App. Term 1976).
Conclusion
Thus, the motion to amend is granted as described herein.
So Ordered: