1303 NEEDHAM REALTY LLC v. BROWN (2025)

Papers Numbers ¹

Respondent's Notice of Motion, Affirmation, and Exhibits 8-15

Petitioner's Opposition and Exhibits 16

Respondent's Reply and Exhibit 17-18

Court File Passim

Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision and Order on this motion is as follows:

In this holdover proceeding, Petitioner 1303 Needham Realty LLC (“Petitioner”) seeks possession of the allegedly unregulated subject premises on grounds that Respondent Junior Brown's (“Respondent”) month-to-month tenancy was terminated pursuant to a ninety-day RPL § 232-a notice served on February 23, 2024. Respondent now moves to dismiss this proceeding under CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (a)(7), on grounds that Petitioner failed to comply with RPAPL § 741(4-5) and RPL §§ 214-216, by failing to comply with the pleading requirements for the recently enacted Good Cause Eviction Law, L 2024, ch 56, part HH (“GCEL”). Respondent's Motion is hereby granted, and this proceeding is dismissed under CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (a)(7), because the Petition does not comply with subdivisions 5-a and 5-b of RPAPL § 741.

The sufficiency of a petition in a summary eviction proceeding is governed by RPAPL § 741, which requires, among other things, that the pleading “1. [s]tate the interest of the petitioner in the premises from which removal is sought[;] 2. [s]tate the respondent's interest in the premises and his relationship to petitioner with regard thereto[;] 3. [d]escribe the premises from which removal is sought[;] 4. [s]tate the facts upon which the special proceeding is based.” “Thus, section 741 ensures that a tenant will be informed of the factual and legal claims that he or she will have to meet and enables the tenant to interpose whatever defenses are available.” MSG Pomp Corp. v. Doe, 185 AD2d 798, 800 (1st Dept 1992). The GCEL modified RPAPL § 741 and added subdivisions 5-a and 5-b, respectively requiring a petitioner-landlord to “[a]ppend or incorporate the notice required pursuant to section two hundred thirty-one-c of the real property law [to the petition]” and to “append or incorporate” information required by “subdivision one of section two hundred fourteen of the real property law [to the petition].” L 2024, ch 56, part HH, § 5.

While these RPAPL § 741 amendments did not take effect until August 18, 2024, RPL § 215, providing that “[n]o landlord shall, by action to evict or to recover possession, by exclusion from possession, by failure to renew any lease, or otherwise, remove any tenant from housing accommodations covered by section two hundred fourteen of this article except for good cause as defined in section two hundred sixteen of this article[,]” went into effect on April 20, 2024. See L 2024, ch 56, part HH, § 7 (“This act shall take effect immediately and shall apply to actions and proceedings commenced on or after such effective date [of April 20, 2024]; provided, however, that: (a) sections two, three, four, and five of this act shall take effect on the one hundred twentieth day after this act shall have become a law”).

This proceeding was commenced on June 6, 2024, and the Petition, dated June 1, 2024, NYSCEF Doc. No. 1, contains no mention of the GCEL.² Petitioner instead argues that “[w]hile the Good Cause Eviction law was passed on April 20, 2024, it did not go into effect until August 18, 2024.” NYSCEF Doc. No. 16 at ¶ 11. In other words, Petitioner's opposition is predicated on the claim that the Petition did not need to plead whether the GCEL applied to the subject premises, because the Petition was filed before August 18, 2024. However, what Petitioner fails to realize is that, whether or not RPAPL § 741 required petitioner-landlords to plead the applicability of, and any exemptions to, the GCEL before August 18, 2024, subdivisions 5-a and 5-b of RPAPL § 741 are now in effect and Petitioner — despite being represented by counsel — has neither moved nor cross moved to amend the Petition to comply with that statutory mandate.³

In light of Petitioner's failure to seek leave to amend the Petition to conform with the pleading requirements of subdivisions 5-a and 5-b of RPAPL § 741, despite having had months of advance notice that these subdivisions would be taking effect on August 18, 2024, Respondent's Motion is hereby granted, and this matter is dismissed.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of this court.

SO ORDERED

FOOTNOTES

1.   NYSCEF Document Number.

2.   CCA § 400 provides that a special proceeding is commenced by filing and Petitioner filed the Notice of Petition and Petition on June 6, 2024.

3.   In reaching this Decision/Order, this Court does not reach the issue of whether RPAPL § 741 required petitioner-landlords to plead the applicability of the GCEL after April 20, 2024, and prior to August 18, 2024, the effective date for subdivisions 5-a and 5-b. See QN St. Albans Holdings LLC v. Sands, 219 N.Y.S.3d 856, 857—58 (Civ Ct, Queens Cty 2024) (“Thus, for any eviction proceeding commenced on or after April 20, 2024, a petitioner must plead if the housing accommodation is subject to GCEL”); see also Volunteers of Am.-Greater New York, Inc. v. Almonte, 65 AD3d 1155, 1157 (2d Dept 2009) (holding that a petition is dismissible if it omits information that could have provide a respondent with potential defenses, or if the information omitted is necessary for the presiding court to properly adjudicate the matter). This Court also does not reach the issue of whether such a pleading defect can be cured by amendment as Petitioner has not sought leave to amend. See MSG Pomp Corp. v. Doe, 185 AD2d at 799-800 (holding that failure to comply with RPAPL § 741 can require dismissal).

Rina Gurung, J.