Dan Lin, Petitioner (Landlord), v. Luis Alberto Genis-Perez, et. al., Respondents (Tenants). (2026)

Recitation, as required by CPLR § 2219(A), of the papers considered in reviewing the Petitioner's and Respondent's post-trial memorandums:

Papers Numbered

Respondent's Post Trial Memorandum (NYSCEF Docs. Nos. 25-36) 1

Petitioner's Post Trial Memorandum (NYSCEF Docs. Nos. 37-40) 2

Other (NYSCEF Doc. No. 19) 3

On May 28, 2026, the Court conducted a trial in the instant proceeding. Petitioner presented two witnesses, Dan Lin and Mingjian Lin, the owners of the subject premises. Both witnesses, among other things, testified to owning two two-residential unit buildings in New York State at 10-07 124 St. College Point, NY 11356 and at 363 50 St. Brooklyn, NY 11220 (the subject premises).¹ After resting their case, Petitioner made an application "to conform the pleadings to the proof."² Respondent then moved for a directed verdict. Respondent argued Petitioner failed to include the necessary disclosures under RPL § 214(1) for the small landlord exemption to the Good Cause Eviction Law ("GCEL").³ The Court denied both Petitioner's and Respondent's application with leave to renew upon completion of trial. At the conclusion of trial, the Court directed parties to submit post-trial briefs as to the limited issue of when Petitioner is required to make the necessary disclosures as required by RPL § 214(1) when pleading the small landlord exemption under the GCEL.

Parties submitted their briefs, and the Court reserved decision.

DISCUSSION

RPL § 211 (3) defines "the term 'small landlord' as a landlord of no more [ ] ten units in the state."

RPL § 214 (1) RPL states:

it shall apply to all housing accommodations except a premises owned by a small landlord provided that in connection with any eviction proceeding in which the landlord claims an exemption from the provisions of this article on the basis of being a small landlord, such landlord shall provide to the tenant or tenants subject to the proceeding the name of each natural person who owns or is a beneficial owner of, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, the housing accommodation at issue in the proceeding, the number of units owned, jointly or separately, by each such natural person owner, and the addresses of any such units, excluding each natural person owner's principal residence. (Emphasis added).

RPL § 226-c states, "whenever the landlord does not intend to renew the tenancy, the landlord shall provide written notice . The notice shall append or contain the notice required pursuant to § 231-c (Good cause eviction law notice [GCELN])."

The RPL § 231-c notice specifically states:

2. IF THE UNIT IS EXEMPT FROM ARTICLE 6-A OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW, KNOWN AS THE NEW YORK STATE GOOD CAUSE EVICTION LAW, WHY IS IT EXEMPT FROM THAT LAW? (PLEASE MARK ALL APPLICABLE EXEMPTIONS) ; B. Unit is owned by a "small landlord," as defined in subdivision 3 of Real Property Law § 211 (Definitions), who owns no more than 10 units for small landlords located in New York City . In connection with any eviction proceeding in which the landlord claims an exemption from the provisions of Article 6-A of the Real Property Law, known as the New York State Good Cause Eviction Law, on the basis of being a small landlord, the landlord shall provide to the tenant or tenants subject to the proceeding the name of each natural person who owns or is a beneficial owner of, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, the housing accommodation at issue in the proceeding, the number of units owned jointly or separately, by each such natural person owner, and the addresses of any such units, excluding each natural person owner's principal residence ___. (Emphasis added.)

Finally, RPAPL § 741, which governs the contents of a petition in a summary eviction proceeding, was amended to include section 5-a which states: "Append or incorporate the notice required pursuant to [RPL § 231-c (GCELN)] "; and 5-b which states "if the petitioner claims exemption from the provisions of article six-A of the [RPL] pursuant [to the small landlord exemption], append or incorporate the information required pursuant to subdivision one of [RPL] § 214."⁴

"Courts cannot amend a statute by inserting words that are not there, nor will a court read into a statute a provision which the [l]egislature did not see fit to enact."⁵ In the instant proceeding, it is undisputed that Petitioner served Respondent the RPL § 231-c (GCELN) appended to their 90-day notice of non-renewal required by RPL § 226-c. It is also undisputed that the non-renewal notice (RPL § 226-c) and the GCELN (RPL § 231-c) did not contain the owner's information required under RPL § 214(1). Respondent argues Petitioner was required to include the owner's information in the notice of non-renewal. This argument lacks merit. Petitioner argues they were not required to provide the owner's information until trial. This argument likewise lacks merit.

The Legislature amended RPAPL § 741 specifically to require a landlord claiming a small landlord exemption disclose the RPL § 214(1) information in the petition.⁶ Specifically, RPAPL § 741 provides two distinct appendages or incorporations. First RPAPL § 741 (5-a) requires Petitioner to append or incorporate the notice under RPL § 231-c (GCELN). Next RPAPL § 741 (5-b) requires Petitioner to append or incorporate the owner's information required under RPL § 214(1). There is no similar language requiring Petitioner to provide the owner's information with the non-renewal notice, before commencement of the proceeding, either in RPL § 214(1), RPL § 226-c (non-renewal notice), or RPL § 231-c (GCELN). Furthermore, the Court notes that in RPL § 214(1) and RPL § 231-c (GCELN), which restates the language of RPL § 214(1), both require petitioner "in connection with an eviction proceeding" to provide the owner's information to the tenant "subject to the [eviction] proceeding." An eviction proceeding commences upon filing, not upon service of the predicate notice.⁷ A plain reading of the statutes does not require the small landlord disclosure at the time the termination notice is served.⁸ Petitioner must allege the owner's information within the petition.⁹ To the extent that other courts have held differently, this Court disagrees.

Respondent next argues that the Court should dismiss the proceeding because the petition is defective for failing to make the necessary disclosures. In response, Petitioner seeks to amend the pleadings to conform with the proof at trial pursuant to CPLR § 3025.

The Court first notes that CCA § 909(a) provides that a party may amend their pleadings once without leave of court within ten days after service of the answer. In the instant proceeding, Respondent filed their answer on May 22, 2026, six days before the May 28, 2026 trial date.¹⁰ As such, Petitioner may amend their pleadings as a matter of right. Alternatively, a party may amend their pleadings by leave of court  ¹¹ or to conform them to the evidence.¹² Absent prejudice, leave to amend should be freely granted, even after trial.¹³ Respondent has failed to demonstrate any prejudice they would face by the amendment. Accordingly, this Court deems Petitioner's pleadings as amended to conform with the evidence presented at trial and to include the necessary disclosures required by RPL § 214(1) and RPAPL § 741(5-b).¹⁴

However, the Court notes that Petitioner only sought to amend their pleadings after resting on their prima facie case, thereby limiting Respondent's opportunity to present a rebuttal. As such, the Court will reopen the record and allow Respondent an opportunity for further rebuttal regarding the limited scope of whether Petitioner is a small landlord as defined by RPL § 211.¹⁵ The matter is restored to the calendar and adjourned to September 25, 2026, at 9:30 A.M. in Part O, Room 505. Respondent's counsel shall serve a copy of this order on Jaime Lathrop, Guardian ad Litem to Respondent, by email within three days of this order's upload to NYSCEF.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated: September 15, 2026

Brooklyn, NY

Travis J. Arrindell, JHC

FOOTNOTES

1.    FTR at 3:34 and 4:02.

2.    FTR at 4:06.

3.    FTR at 4:07.

4.   RPAPL § 741 5-a.

5.    People v. Corr, 42 NY3d 668, 673, (internal quotes omitted) (citing People v. Hardy, 35 NY3d 466, 474).

6.   RPAPL § 741 5-b.

7.   CCA § 400; see also Am. Package Co., Inc. v Postelnicu, 89 Misc 3d 130(A) [App Term 2026].

8.    Durand v. Nelson, 2026 NY Misc. LEXIS 5430; see also Shoreview Holdings, LLC v. Fernandez, 250 N.Y.S.3d 370.

9.   RPAPL § 741 5-b.

10.   NYSCEF Doc. No. 19.

11.   CPLR 3025(b).

12.   CPLR § 3025(c).

13.    Kimso Apts., LLC v. Gandhi, 24 NY3d 403, 411.

14.    47-05 Ctr. SPE L.L.C. v Hack, 87 Misc 3d 787, 789 (Civ Ct 2025) (The court sua sponte amended the pleadings to reflect the GCEL exemption after trial.)

15.    MRI Enters., Inc. v Comprehensive Med. Care of NY, P.C., 2014 NY Slip Op 07482 [122 AD3d 595]

Travis J. Arrindell, J.