Jaikarran & Sons, Inc. v. Beecham

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Jaikarran & Sons, Inc. v. Beecham

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 5, 2018

Docket2018 NYSlipOp 51410(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Jaikarran & Sons, Inc. v. Beecham (Jaikarran & Sons, Inc. v. Beecham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jaikarran & Sons, Inc. v. Beecham, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Jaikarran & Sons, Inc., Petitioner-Appellant,

against

Quentin Beecham, Respondent-Respondent, and "John Doe" and "Jane Doe," Respondents.

Petitioner appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Timmie Erin Elsner, J.), entered on or about August 2, 2016, which granted respondent's motion to dismiss the petition at the close of petitioner's case, and denied petitioner's cross motion to amend the petition, in a holdover summary proceeding.

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 [*2]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]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: October 05, 2018

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Jaikarran & Sons, Inc., Petitioner-Appellant,

against

Quentin Beecham, Respondent-Respondent, and "John Doe" and "Jane Doe," Respondents.

Petitioner appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Timmie Erin Elsner, J.), entered on or about August 2, 2016, which granted respondent's motion to dismiss the petition at the close of petitioner's case, and denied petitioner's cross motion to amend the petition, in a holdover summary proceeding.

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 [*2]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]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: October 05, 2018

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jaikarran & Sons, Inc. v. Beecham, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jaikarran-sons-inc-v-beecham-nyappterm-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack