Opinion
570095/18
10-05-2018
JAIKARRAN & SONS, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Quentin BEECHAM, Respondent-Respondent, and "John Doe" and "Jane Doe," Respondents.
Per Curiam.
Order (Timmie Erin Elsner, J.), entered August 2, 2016, affirmed, with $10 costs.
A summary proceeding is a special proceeding created by statute, and it is well established that there must be strict compliance with the statutory requirements (see Riverside Syndicate, Inc. v. Saltzman , 49 AD3d 402 [2008] ), including the requirement that the petition state, among other things, the respondent's interest in the premises and the facts upon which the proceeding is based (see RPAPL 741[2],[4] ; Gianni v. Stuart , 6 AD2d 418 [1958] ). While nonprejudicial, de minimis defects in a petition are capable of correction by amendment (see Birchwood Towers # 2 Assoc. v. Schwartz , 98 AD2d 699 [1983] ; Jackson v. New York City Hous. Auth. , 88 Misc 2d 121 [App Term, 1st Dept 1976] ; see also 546 West 156th Street HDFC v. Smalls , 43 AD3d 7 [2007] ; Brookwood Coram I, LLC v. Oliva , 47 Misc 3d 140[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50607[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th and 10th Jud Dists 2015]; Bosco v. Merle , 24 Misc 3d 139[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51630[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th and 13th Jud Dists 2009] ), we agree with Civil Court that the "number of defects in this petition are extreme and extraordinary" thus rendering them non-amendable. "[A] landlord should not be given leave to submit what is essentially a new and redrafted verified petition under the guise of amendment" (141 St. Assocs. v. Smith , NYLJ, June 20, 1991, at 25, col 3 [App Term, 1st Dept 1991] ).