Opinion
570006/05.
Decided March 24, 2006.
Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), dated August 22, 2003, which denied its motion to amend the petitions in consolidated holdover summary proceedings.
Order (Gerald Lebovits, J.), dated August 22, 2003, affirmed, with $10 costs.
PRESENT: McCooe, J.P., Gangel-Jacob, Schoenfeld, JJ.
Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying landlord's motion for leave to amend the holdover petitions to include a claim of high-rent vacancy deregulation (Rent Stabilization Code [ 9 NYCRR] § 2520.11[r]). Landlord's proposed pleadings were palpably insufficient ( see 111 on 11 Realty Corp. v. Norton, 189 Misc 2d 389, 398, revd on other grounds 5 Misc 3d 28) and thus leave to amend was properly denied ( see Leibowitz v. Plaza 400 Owners' Corp., 226 AD2d 681, lv dismissed 88 NY2d 963). Inasmuch as landlord's proposed claim was grounded upon whether the apartments in issue are regulated, and not directly related to the calculation of a rent overcharge, landlord's reliance upon the four-year statute of limitations in support of the proposed amendment is misplaced ( see East W. Renovating Co. v. DHCR, 16 AD3d 166).
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
I concur.