25G LLC v. Habib Sambar, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant, and "John Doe" and "Jane Doe," Respondents. (2026)

Per Curiam.

Final judgments (Daniele Chinea, J.), each entered January 14, 2026, reversed, without costs, and matter remanded to Civil Court for a traverse hearing to determine whether tenant was properly served. Appeal from orders (Daniele Chinea, J.), dated, respectively, October 6, 2025 and January 12, 2026, dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeals from the final judgments.

Civil Court erred in concluding that tenant's affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction was waived. Tenant "did not waive this defense by moving for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits, given that [tenant] had previously raised the jurisdictional defense" (see Gliklad v Cherney, 97 AD3d 401, 402 [2012]).

Turning to the merits of the defense, landlord's affidavit of service constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Njoku, 148 AD3d 438 [2017]). However, tenant's sworn nonconclusory denial of service was sufficient to dispute the veracity or content of the affidavit, requiring a traverse hearing (see NYCTL 1998-1 Trust & Bank of NY v Rabinowitz, 7 AD3d 459, 460 [2004]; GL Botanical, LLC v Crawford-Escala, 89 Misc 3d 128[A], 2026 NY Slip Op 50924[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2026]). Specifically, the parties' competing averments raise a factual issue concerning whether tenant was served at the subject apartment premises.

Tenant's other contentions were properly rejected. The notice of nonrenewal complied with Real Property Law (RPL) § 226-c and was reasonable in view of the attendant circumstances (see generally Hughes v Lenox Hill Hosp., 226 AD2d 4, 17 [1996], lv dismissed, 90 NY2d 829 [1997]). The notice unambiguously indicated that tenant's lease would not be renewed, that his lease was scheduled to expire on March 31, 2025 and that he was required to vacate by that date. Tenant was also informed that the premises was exempt from the Good Cause Eviction Law because it is within a housing accommodation owned as a condominium (see RPL §§ 231-c, 214 [7]).

We have considered tenant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: October 21, 2026