975 LLC v. Maria C. Sanchez, Appellant. (2026)

ORDERED that the final judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this nonpayment proceeding, the petition, dated February 22, 2024, alleged that the subject apartment is rent stabilized and that the monthly rent was $2,366.76, and sought possession and the sum of $7,867.32. Tenant's answer asserted, among other things, an affirmative defense that the petition is defective in that it does not allege that an effective multiple dwelling registration is on file or provide any information for a registered managing agent. Tenant also asserted counterclaims for breach of the warranty of habitability and rent overcharge.

On January 31, 2025, the matter proceeded to trial. At the conclusion of landlord's case-in-chief, during which landlord presented a current ledger, landlord orally moved to conform the pleadings to the proof with respect to rent owed. Tenant opposed, arguing that such a motion must be written. The Civil Court (Sergio Jimenez, J.) reserved decision. Tenant's testimony was limited to warranty of habitability issues. In a posttrial memorandum of law, tenant again argued that a motion to amend the petition must be written. Additionally, she argued that the copy of the notice of petition and petition served on her was fatally defective in that they were both missing the second page which normally contains critical information, such as the stamp and signature of the Clerk of the Court from the notice of petition, and the information regarding landlord's managing agent and multiple dwelling registration from the petition. Tenant also contended that she was overcharged, stemming from an unexplained increase of the monthly rent from $1,014 to $2,200 as registered with the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) on July 30, 2018, for which she filed a DHCR overcharge complaint during the pendency of this proceeding. In a decision dated March 31, 2025, the Civil Court (Sergio Jimenez, J.) granted landlord's motion to conform the pleadings to the proof and awarded landlord possession and the sum of $29,712.93, following an abatement of $2,542.14 on tenant's breach of the warranty of habitability counterclaim. A final judgment was entered on March 31, 2025 in accordance with the decision.

Uniform Rules for New York City Civil Court (22 NYCRR) § 208.42 (c) sets forth the notice of petition form required for nonpayment proceedings, which includes a section designated for the stamp of the Clerk of the Court. Uniform Rules for New York City Civil Court (22 NYCRR) § 208.42 (g) (2) provides that, for multiple dwellings, a nonpayment petition must allege that the premises has an effective multiple dwelling registration on file. While, in some instances, the failure to conform a notice of petition to a form made mandatory by statute or court rule may be treated as jurisdictional (see David A. Kaminsky & Assoc., PC v Brenner, 64 Misc 3d 129[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51028[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2019]; see generally Roth v State Univ. of NY, 61 AD3d 476 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 711 [2009]; Micro-Spy, Inc. v Small, 9 AD3d 122 [2004]; Wells v Mount Sinai Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 196 AD2d 749 [1993]), CPLR 2001 permits a court to disregard an omission or defect where a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced (see Young v City of New York, 164 AD3d 711 [2018]). Tenant has not demonstrated that she was prejudiced by the missing information from the copy of the notice of petition and petition served on her. Copies of those documents, which were filed with the Civil Court and are viewable on NYSCEF, contain those missing pages and all of the requisite information, including the stamp of the Clerk of the Court and the multiple dwelling registration number, making any such missing information from the served copies available to tenant. Under these circumstances, we find that the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in determining that no substantial right was prejudiced as a result.

Pursuant to CPLR 3025 (c), the "court may permit pleadings to be amended before or after judgment to conform them to the evidence, upon such terms as may be just." While CPLR 3025 (b) requires that a motion made pursuant thereto "be accompanied by the proposed amended or supplemental pleading clearly showing the changes or additions to be made to the pleading," CPLR 3025 (c), contrary to tenant's contention, does not include any such requirement. Here, while tenant argues that she had only "a few minutes" to review the ledger at trial, she did not argue in her motion or on appeal that the rent ledger did not reflect the correct months for which arrears had accumulated. Thus, we find no basis to disturb the court's granting of landlord's oral motion at trial to conform the pleadings to the proof (see Kimso Apts., LLC v Gandhi, 24 NY3d 403 [2014]; Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18 [1981]; Dittmar Explosives v A. E. Ottaviano, Inc., 20 NY2d 498, 502 [1967]; Ward v City of Schenectady, 204 AD2d 779 [1994]).

While the statute of limitations for rent overcharge claims was lengthened from four years to six years upon the enactment of the HSTPA on June 14, 2019 (see CPLR 213-a), any allegedly unlawful rent increase that occurred prior to the HSTPA, such as the increase here, is subject to the four-year statute of limitations (see Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 35 NY3d 332 [2020]; Bhawan 330 Realty LLC v Briones, 85 Misc 3d 128[A], 2025 NY Slip Op 50175[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2025]). The court may look back further than four years where a tenant presents " 'substantial indicia'. . . of 'a landlord's fraudulent deregulation scheme to remove an apartment from the protections of rent stabilization,' . . . for the limited purpose of determining whether a fraudulent scheme to destabilize the apartment tainted the reliability of the rent on the base date' " (Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 35 NY3d at 355, quoting Matter of Grimm v State of NY Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal Off. of Rent Admin., 15 NY3d 358, 366-367 [2010]; see Burrows v 75-25 153rd St., LLC, 44 NY3d 74 [2025]). "Such allegations must include more than an assertion that a tenant was overcharged—a mere allegation of a high rent increase is insufficient for the fraud exception to apply" (Burrows v 75-25 153rd St., LLC, 44 NY3d at 84; see Matter of Grimm v State of NY Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal Off. of Rent Admin., 15 NY3d 358). Here, tenant's speculation that a 2018 increase was fraudulent because it was substantial and resulted in a round number does not trigger the exception. Consequently, tenant's claim of overcharge is untimely.

Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed.

TOUSSAINT, P.J., MUNDY and QUIÑONES, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Jennifer Chan

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: June 26, 2026