Phillip Morgan, Appellant, v. Paula Caesar, Respondent. (2026)

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

The petition in this holdover proceeding, commenced in October 2024, sought to recover an unregulated apartment after landlord elected to terminate tenant's lease. The petition did not state whether the unit was subject to the Good Cause Eviction Law (GCEL) (Real Property Law art 6-A). Tenant answered, asserting that landlord failed to comply with the GCEL. Landlord moved for, in effect, summary judgment awarding him possession, arrears, and ongoing use and occupancy. By order dated July 7, 2025, the Civil Court (Javier E. Ortiz, J.) dismissed the petition pursuant to CPLR 409 (b), based upon landlord's failure to comply with the GCEL, and denied landlord's motion as moot.

The GCEL requires, among other things, that a petition in a summary proceeding state whether or not the GCEL applies to the dwelling (see RPAPL 741 [5-a]). If the GCEL applies, the petition must state the basis for nonrenewal (see id.). If the GCEL does not apply, the petition must state the reason why the premises are not subject to the GECL and, if an exemption is claimed on the basis of being a "small landlord," include the information required for such exemption, as set forth in Real Property Law § 214 (1) (see RPAPL 741 [5-b]). This case was commenced after the August 18, 2024 effective date of L 2024, ch 56, § 1, part HH, § 5, which added subdivisions 5-a and 5-b to RPAPL 741, and the petition did not contain the required information. "A petition which contains fundamental misstatements and omissions is subject to dismissal" (King-Knights v Hall, 83 Misc 3d 130[A], 2024 NY Slip Op 50805[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2024] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Henry v Kingsberry, 66 Misc 3d 143[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50175[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]; see also Volunteers of Am.-Greater NY, Inc. v Almonte, 17 Misc 3d 57 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007], affd 65 AD3d 1155 [2009]).

Landlord's remaining contentions are either dehors the record or unpreserved for appellate review and have not been considered by this court (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

ENTER:

Jennifer Chan

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: June 17, 2026