Case Name: 34 & 7 Realopp Corp., Appellant, v. Seafood City, Inc., Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1972-05-22
Citations: 71 Misc. 2d 302
Docket Number: 
Parties: 34 & 7 Realopp Corp., Appellant, v. Seafood City, Inc., Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 71
Pages: 302–303

Head Matter:
34 & 7 Realopp Corp., Appellant, v. Seafood City, Inc., Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
May 22, 1972.
Gubman dk Sitomer {Joseph G. Gubma/n and Robert I. Edlitz of counsel), for appellant. Garb, Luria, Glassner, Gooh & Kufeld {Bernard B. Sumliner of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Guriam.
The failure to allege in the petition that ' ' the premises are not a multiple dwelling " as required by the New York City Civil Court Rules (22 NYCRR 2900.21 [f j), is a defect which can be amended by motion at any time before conclusion of the trial (Rosgro Realty Co. v. Braynen, 70 Misc 2d 808; Presta v. Circle Studios, N. Y. L. J., April 7,1972, p. 2, col. 5).
The other objections raised as to jurisdiction have no merit.
The order should be reversed with $10 costs, and motion to dismiss .the petition should be denied, matter remitted to the court below for trial of the traverse.
Concur — Streit, J. P., Qmrrn and G-old, JJ.
Order reversed, etc.