Camba Inc., Petitioner-Landlord, v. Yvette Sutton, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe", Respondent(s)-Occupant (2026)

Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of motion(s) Seq. 01 & 02:

Papers Numbered NYSCEF Doc. No.

Notice of Motion (Seq. 01), Affirmation(s) in Support Exhibit(s) 1 10 to 12

13 to 16

Affirmation in Opposition, Affirmation(s) in Support of Cross-Motion (Seq. 02), Exhibit(s) 2 17 to 22

Affirmation in Reply and Opposition to Cross-Motion 3 23

NYSCEF Court File 1 to 23

Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision/Order on Respondent's Motion (Seq. 01) and Petitioner's Cross-Motion (Seq. 02) is as follows:

This summary holdover proceeding commenced by notice of petition and petition dated March 16, 2026, where CAMBA INC. ("Petitioner") sought to recover possession of the subject apartment located at 87-40 165th Street, Apt. 1R, Jamaica, NY 11432 ("Subject Premises"). As described in the 30-Day Notice to Quit to Licensee ("Notice"), which is incorporated in the petition by reference, Stanley Leach resided at the subject supportive housing unit as an eligible participant of a Scatter Site Housing Program operated by Petitioner. Thereafter, due to his permanent vacatur and transfer of his benefits to a rehabilitation and nursing home, lost eligibility and was terminated from the program. The Notice goes on to say that Yevette Sutton ("Respondent") continues to reside at the subject premises despite being notified that she is ineligible to remain and any license afforded to her by Leach was terminated by his vacatur. The matter was assigned to resolution Part F back in May 2026.

Respondent retained counsel and filed the instant motion (Seq. 01) to dismiss on July 30, 2026, returnable September 9, 2026. Petitioner submitted opposition and a cross-motion (Seq. 02) on August 17, 2026. Respondent submitted their reply to the opposition and opposition to the cross-motion on August 28, 2026. The Court heard arguments on September 9, 2026, and reserved its decision.

Respondent's motion seeks dismissal pursuant to CPLR § 3211 (a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action due to material inconsistencies between the predicate notice and the petition which fail to clearly apprise Respondent of the basis for the proceeding. Specifically, the Notice calls Respondent a "licensee" whereas the petition calls her a "subtenant," the termination date on the Notice is February 20, 2026, but on the petition, it is February 28, 2026, and the petition fails to describe Leach's interest in the premises at all, or how his lawful occupancy ended, and without those allegations, Petitioner cannot establish lawful termination of Respondent's derivative occupancy. Respondent's affirmation in support describes that her and Leach were long-term life partners and that he unfortunately passed away on March 17, 2026, prior to commencement of this proceeding. See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 12. Respondent also seeks dismissal based on Petitioner's failure to plead the Good Cause Eviction Law ("GCEL") status and exemption in the body of the petition in compliance with RPAPL 741(5)(a).

In conjunction with their affirmation in opposition to dismissal, Petitioner filed a cross-motion to amend the petition pursuant to CPLR § 3025(b) to correct the discrepancies raised by Respondent. Petitioner seeks to amend the body of the petition to clarify that Respondent is a licensee, not a subtenant, correct the terminate date in the petition to conform with the date in the Notice, add explicit language that the tenancy is exempt from GCEL protections as already noted in the GCEL notice that was attached to the Notice, clarify the regulatory status of the unit as supportive-housing, where Petitioner utilizes the subject premises for supportive housing purposes, and as such Respondent cannot have independent rent stabilized tenancy rights. The proposed Amended Petition (NYSCEF Doc. No. 22) goes into detail as to the nature of Leach's occupancy and why he was no longer able to remain eligible. The proposed Petition also seeks to include that based on Respondent's representation in her sworn submission, and which Petitioner did not know prior to commencement, that Leach is deceased. As such, Petitioner need not proceed against him in this matter  ¹ . Petitioner maintains that the amendment, which ought to be freely granted, eliminates any basis for Respondent to claim surprise or prejudice, and because it corrects the issues raised in the motion, dismissal is unwarranted.

In reply, Respondent objects to the amendment where it is not simply a correction of minor pleading issues—it is an impermissible attempt to replace a fundamentally defective petition with an entirely new one. See, Jericho Project Lessee v Marte-Travera, 67 Misc 3d 1204(A) (Civ. Ct. NY County 2020). Respondent alleges the proposed amendment expands the petition from seven paragraphs to eighteen, adds new monetary relief, and seeks to make about six changes which go beyond "harmless" or "technical." Additionally, Petitioner offered no excuse for the misstatements and omissions, and it was not until Respondent pointed out the defects that they sought amendment. Respondent argues that allowing amendment would undermine pleading requirements.

When deciding a motion pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(7), the petition "is to be afforded a liberal construction, the facts alleged are presumed to be true, the [petitioner] is afforded the benefit of every favorable inference, and the court is to determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory." Watts v City of New York, 186 AD3d 1577, 1578 (2d Dept 2020). RPAPL § 741 requires that the petition state the interest of the Petition, state respondent's interest and relationship to petitioner, describe the premises, state the facts upon which the special proceeding is based, state the relief sought, and append or incorporate the applicability or exemption under GCEL. It is well settled law that leave to amend a pleading "shall be freely given" absent prejudice or surprise resulting from the delay. CPLR 3025 (b). The question, then, is whether Petitioner should be allowed to amend its pleading to bring it into compliance with RPAPL § 741.

At first blush, the Amended Petition seems markedly different and may be misconstrued as an outright replacement of the original. However, a review of the proposed Amended Petition shows that many of the added allegations merely expand upon information already contained in the predicate Notice and GCEL notice attached to it, which was incorporated by reference into the original Petition. See, CPLR Rule 3014. Thus, corrections or amendment of a petition cannot fix shortcomings in a predicate notice, however, the Court sees no prejudice where a proposed amendment merely seeks to mirror allegations contained in the notice. See, Hillside Park 168 LLC v Anwar MD, 79 Misc 3d 1219(A) (Civ. Ct. Queens County 2023). Here, the Notice had identified Leach as an eligible program participant, explained that Respondent's occupancy was derivative of his participation, and set forth the termination date of February 20, 2026; it also provided the underlying factual theory of a licensee holdover. The Notice included much factual information that was not actually required, as there is "no requirement that a notice to quit provide specific information regarding the circumstances under which the tenant of record vacated the premises in a licensee proceeding." New York City Hous. Auth.-Latimer Gardens Houses v Strobert, 244 N.Y.S.3d 667 (App. Term, 2d Dept 2025). The only real requirement is that a notice to quit be "reasonable under the attendant circumstances" and where "occupants are in the best position to know the circumstances under which they entered into occupancy." See, Kew Gardens Portfolio Holdings, LLC v Bucheli, 130 N.Y.S.3d 878 (App. Term 2d Dept 2020). The amendments correct a typographical error as to the termination date, supply additional context—such as the program structure, the occupancy agreement, and regulatory background—without altering the core factual basis already disclosed in the Notice itself. See, Villas of Forest Hills Co. v Lumberger, 128 AD2d 701, 702 (2d Dept 1987) (failure to make the required allegation will not deprive the hearing court of jurisdiction of the matter since the defective petition may be corrected by amendment). Thus, the amendments largely reiterate and elaborate upon information that was previously incorporated rather than introducing wholly new grounds.

Respondent argues that Petitioner is somehow seeking new relief by adding a request for use and occupancy beginning February 21, 2026, in the proposed Amended Petition. However, the original Petition already included a demand for "reasonable use and occupancy," meaning the relief Petitioner seeks is not newly introduced but in a more detailed form, undermining Respondent's claim of surprise or prejudice. See, RPAPL § 711 and Chatham Green Mgmt. Corp. v AAFE Mgmt. Co., 2003 NY Slip Op. 51298(U) (Civ. Ct. NY County 2003) (a request for use and occupancy "does not require that the exact amount of use and occupancy prayed for be stated; rather, it would be sufficient simply to request such relief and have the actual amount of such payment be determined by the court after the hearing on the underlying claim.")

For the above reasons, it is SO ORDERED that Petitioner's cross-motion (Seq. 02) is GRANTD. The proposed Amended Petition is hereby deemed served and filed nunc pro tunc. See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 22. In light of the Amended Petition, which corrects the misidentification of Respondent's status, aligns the termination date with the predicate notice, accurately pleads the regulatory and supportive housing context, and expressly states the asserted GCEL exemption, the deficiencies Respondent relies upon in seeking dismissal have been fully mooted. The amendment brings the pleading into compliance with RPAPL § 741 and eliminates the inconsistencies Respondent claims prevented adequate notice.

Consequently, it is SO ORDERED that Respondent's motion (Seq. 01) is DENIED and the matter is hereby adjourned to October 5, 2026, at 9:30am in Part F, Room 405, for pre-trial conference. Petitioner shall serve a copy of this Decision/Order on Respondent along with notice of entry within 5 days of court upload of this Decision/Order to NYSCEF. Proof of which shall be uploaded to NYSCEF.

This constitutes the Decision/Order of the court. A copy of same to be uploaded to NYSCEF.

Dated: September 11, 2026

Hon. Amira Hassan

Housing Court Judge

Queens, NY

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Court notes that Leach was not named in the body of the original petition and therefore, despite appearing on the caption of the case in the filing, was not a "party."

Amira Hassan, J.