Mapama Corp. v. Nadelson

Full title: MAPAMA CORP., Appellant, v. JAY NADELSON et al., Respondents

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Nov 2, 1989

155 A.D.2d 233 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

546 N.Y.S.2d 615

Opinion

November 2, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (David Edwards, Jr., J.).

Plaintiff, owner of an interim multiple dwelling, failed to allege compliance with the owner obligations of the Loft Law, as is required in an action to recover rent (Matter of Blackgold Realty Corp. v Milne, 69 N.Y.2d 719; Multiple Dwelling Law § 285). The complaint was therefore subject to attack by CPLR 3211 (a) motion. Even assuming the taking of all reasonable and necessary action by landlord to attain the standards of Multiple Dwelling Law § 284 would be sufficient compliance, plaintiff's evidentiary showing in opposition to the motion, attempting to cure its pleading omission, fails to make such a demonstration. Thus, it was plain it did not plead a cause of action (Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 N.Y.2d 633, 636; Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Ross, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.