Opinion
No. 570126/24
06-21-2024
3308 Bronx, LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant, v. Merrick A. Wilson d/b/a Five Points Banquet Hall and XYZ Corp., Respondents-Tenants-Respondents.
Unpublished Opinion
Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Verena C. Powell, J.), entered February 26, 2024, which denied its motion to amend the petition nunc pro tunc in a holdover summary proceeding.
PRESENT: Hagler, P.J., Tisch, James, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Order (Verena C. Powell, J.), entered February 26, 2024, affirmed, without costs.
Paragraph 5 of the commercial holdover petition described the premises from which removal is sought as "3308 Bronx LLC." Following tenant's default and an inquest, landlord moved to amend paragraph 5 nunc pro tunc to describe the premises as "3308 White Plains Road, Ground Floor, Bronx, NY 10467-5703."
Civil Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion. Although the failure to adequately describe the premises in the holdover petition, as required byRPAPL 741(3), does not deprive the Civil Court of subject matter jurisdiction (see 156 Nassau Ave. HDFC v Tchernitsky, 62 Misc.3d 140 [A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50059[U] [App Term, 2nd Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019] ; Jackson v New York City Hous. Auth., 88 Misc.2d 121 [App Term, 1st Dept 1976]), we agree that the defective description of the premises in this case could not be corrected by a nunc pro tunc amendment of the plandletition (see U.S. Airways, Inc. v Everything Yogurt Brands, Inc., 18 Misc.3d 136 [A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50279[U] [App Term, 2nd Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]). The defect was substantial, not de minimus, and we cannot say that it did not materially mislead or confuse the tenant (cf. 307 W. 82nd St. Hous. Corp. v Zacharias, 59 Misc.3d 148 [A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50785[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2018]).