265 EAST 66TH LLC v. YEGERMAN (2025)

Order (Alberto M. Gonzalez, J.), entered March 4, 2025, insofar as appealed from, reversed, with $10 costs, tenant's motion denied, petition reinstated, and the matter remanded to Civil Court for further proceedings.

Tenant's preanswer motion to dismiss the nonpayment petition for lack of standing (CPLR 3211 [a] [3]), should have been denied.

The nonpayment petition alleges that petitioner “265 East 66th LLC” is the “landlord[ ] and owner of the premises”. In support of the motion to dismiss, tenant submits his lease, which identifies the owner or lessor as “265 E 66th St LLC” [emphasis added]. In opposition to the motion, landlord submits a deed confirming that it is an owner of the premises and an affidavit stating that the designation of “265 E 66th St LLC” as owner in the lease was the “result of a typographical error [and] [t]here is no such entity as ‘265 E 66th St LLC.’ ”

To defeat a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3), petitioner “has no burden of establishing its standing as a matter of law; rather, the motion will be defeated if the [petitioner's] submissions raise a question of fact as to its standing” (MLB Sub I, LLC v Bains, 148 AD3d 881, 882 [2017] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Here, petitioner's submissions raise an issue of fact as to whether the lease contains a misdescription of the name of petitioner and whether petitioner is the proper party to maintain this proceeding (see Skyline Enters. of NY Corp. v Amuram Realty Co., 288 AD2d 292 [2001] [misidentification of corporate plaintiff in contract does not preclude plaintiff from enforcing contract where it demonstrated that it was really intended by the parties to be the corporate entity described in the contract]; KSK Constr. Group, LLC v 26 E. 64th St., LLC, 126 AD3d 568, 568-569 [2015] [the plaintiff's use of a variant of its legal name on the construction contract with defendant does not warrant dismissal of its claim]; see also BLDG 44 Devs. LLC v Pace Cos. NY, LLC, 213 AD3d 405 [2023] [use of unregistered assumed name on purchase orders did not warrant dismissal of the third-party plaintiff's claim]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.

All concur