Court Opinion

ID: 9939438
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 21:11:02.275905+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:08.104607
License: Public Domain

1691 Fulton Ave. Assoc., L.P. v Washington
               2024 NY Slip Op 30411(U)
                    February 7, 2024
  Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County
         Docket Number: Index No. 313351/21
                Judge: Travis J. Arrindell
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                   INDEX NO. LT-313351-21/BX [HO]
  FILED: BRONX CIVIL COURT - L&T 02/08/2024 07:44 AM
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2024

            NEW YORK CITY CIVIL COURT
            COUNTY OF BRONX: HOUSING PART B
            ----------------------------------------------------------------X
            1691 FULTON AVENUE ASSOCIATES, L.P.,

                               Petitioner - Landlord,                           DECISION AND ORDER
                      v.
                                                                                L&T 313351/21
            SHANELLE WASHINGTON, “JOHN DOE,”
            and “JANE DOE,”

                               Respondents (Occupants).

            ----------------------------------------------------------------X
            Present:          HON. TRAVIS J. ARRINDELL
                              Judge, Housing Court

            Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219(A), of the papers considered in the review of
            Respondent’s motion to amend and Petitioner’s cross-motion to deem their service affidavit filed
            timely nunc pro tunc and use and occupancy:
            Papers
            Respondent’s Motion (Numbered 14-20 on NYSCEF).......…….................……..……...... 1
            Petitioner’s Cross motion and Opposition (Numbered 21-26 on NYSCEF)……............... 2
            Respondent’s Reply (Numbered 19 on NYSCEF)....……............................…….............. 3
            ____________________________________________________________
            TRAVIS J. ARRINDELL, J.:

                   After review of the papers, Respondent’s motion seeking to amend their answer is
            granted, and Petitioner’s cross-motion seeking the affidavit of service timely filed, nunc pro tunc,
            and use and occupancy is denied.

                                                 Respondent’s Motion to Amend

                    Pursuant to CPLR § 3025(b) “A party may amend [their] pleading …at any time by leave
            of court. Leave shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just…” The granting or denying
            of a motion to amend is a matter of judicial discretion.1 “Mere lateness is not a barrier to the
            amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side.”2 Prejudice
            has been defined as a special right lost in the interim, a change of position, or significant trouble
            or expense that could have been avoided had the original pleading contained the proposed

            1
                Murray v. New York, 43 N.Y.2d 400.
            2
                Siegal, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons. Laws of New York, Book 7B, CPLR 3025:5 at 356.

                                                                 1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                   INDEX NO. LT-313351-21/BX [HO]
  FILED: BRONX CIVIL COURT - L&T 02/08/2024 07:44 AM
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38                                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2024

            amendment.3 Courts should also “examine the sufficiency of the merits of the proposed
            amendment when considering such motions. [If] the proposed amendments are totally devoid of
            merit and are legally insufficient, leave to amend should be denied.”4 Furthermore, “it has been
            repeatedly held that defenses waived under CPLR § 3211 (e) can nevertheless be interposed,
            with court leave, in an amended answer, provided the amendment does not cause the plaintiff
            ‘prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay.’”5
                    Petitioner fails to allege any facts in their opposition demonstrating any prejudice if the
            Court were to grant Respondent’s amendment. Petitioner’s opposition is devoid of any
            allegations demonstrating a special right lost, a change of position, or significant trouble or
            expense that could have been avoided. Furthermore, but for Respondent’s jurisdictional defense,
            Petitioner is prepared to allow the amendment.6 Petitioner argues that Respondent’s jurisdictional
            defense lacks merit therefore their motion to amend must be denied. However, the opposite is
            true; Respondent’s jurisdictional defense has merit.
                    Pursuant to RPAPL § 733 (1) “…the notice of petition and petition shall be served at
            least ten and not more than seventeen days before the time at which the petition is noticed to be
            heard.” Furthermore, pursuant to RPAPL § 735 (2), service of the notice of petition and petition
            by conspicuous service is complete only upon filing proof of service. It is undisputed by the
            parties that the Notice of Petition and Petition was noticed to be heard on December 7, 2021.
            Additionally, it is undisputed that the Notice of Petition and Petition was served upon
            Respondent by conspicuous service on November 24, 2021. Finally, it also undisputed Petitioner
            completed service of the Notice of Petition and Petition by filing their service affidavit on
            November 29, 2021, eight days prior to the December 7, 2021 return date.7 Since Petitioner short
            served the Notice of Petition and Petition pursuant to RPAPL § 733, Respondent’s jurisdictional
            defense has merit and the Court in its discretion grants Respondent’s motion to amend.

                       Petitioner’s Cross-motion to Deem the Affidavit of Service Timely Filed.

                     In the alternative, though Petitioner admits that they short served the Notice of Petition
            and Petition pursuant to RPAPL § 733, they argue that Respondent suffered no prejudice by their
            late filing and that the Court should overlook the filing defect.8 However, Petitioner’s argument
            lacks merit. In Riverside Syndicate, Inc. v. Saltzman, 49 A.D.3d 402, 402, the Appellate
            Division First Department (Appellate Division) dismissed a summary proceeding because the
            landlord failed to complete service within the statutory time frame as required by RPAPL § 733.
            The Court in Saltzman, 49 A.D.3d 402, noted “a summary proceeding is a special proceeding
            ‘governed entirely by statute . . . and it is well established that there must be strict compliance

            3
             Heller v. Louis Provenzano, Inc., 303 A.D.2d 20.
            4
             Id., at 25.
           5
             See Armstrong v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 150 A.D.2d 189, 190 (citing Fahey v County of Ontario, 44
           NY2d 934, 935).
           6
             See Petitioner’s Affirmation in Support of Cross Motion and in Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Amend
           (NYSCEF Doc. # 22), at ¶ 15.
           7
             See NYSCEF Doc. # 7.
           8
             See Petitioner’s Affirmation in Support of Cross Motion and in Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Amend
           (NYSCEF Doc. # 22), at ¶ 11 (citing CPLR § 2001).

                                                              2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                   INDEX NO. LT-313351-21/BX [HO]
  FILED: BRONX CIVIL COURT - L&T 02/08/2024 07:44 AM
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38                                                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2024

            with the statutory requirements to give the court jurisdiction.’”9 It is important to note, that the
            Appellate Division in Saltzman, 49 A.D.3d 402, overruled the lower court’s, Appellate Term
            First Department, decision in this matter finding “In the absence of any discernible prejudice to
            tenants, landlord's one-day delay in filing proof of service of the petitions did not require
            dismissal of these otherwise properly commenced holdover proceedings.”10 The Appellate
            Division in its holding to “strict compliance” rejected the prejudice analysis followed by the
            lower court and other cases relied on by Petitioner such as Jamal Estates v. Crockwell, 113 Misc.
            2d 548 (Appellate Term 1st Dept.,1982) (holding a landlord may seek nunc pro tunc relief from a
            late filing absence prejudice). Because Saltzman, 49 A.D.3d 402, requires strict compliance and
            rejects an analysis on prejudice, Petitioner’s cross-motion seeking their service affidavit timely
            filed, nunc pro tunc, is denied.

                                     Petitioner’s Cross-motion for Use and Occupancy

                   Petitioner’s cross-motion for use and occupancy is denied. RPAPL § 745(2) states:

                            2. In the City of New York:
                            (a) In a summary proceeding upon the second of two adjournments
                            granted solely at the request of the respondent, or, upon the sixtieth
                            day after the first appearance of the parties in court less any days
                            that the proceeding has been adjourned upon the request of the
                            petitioner, counting only days attributable to adjournment
                            requests made solely at the request of the respondent and not
                            counting an initial adjournment requested by a respondent
                            unrepresented by counsel for the purpose of securing counsel,
                            whichever occurs sooner, the court may, upon consideration of the
                            equities, direct that the respondent, upon a motion on notice made
                            by the petitioner, deposit with the court sums of rent or use and
                            occupancy….11

                   Petitioner commenced this matter on November 16, 2021.12 The matter was initially
            scheduled to be heard on December 7, 2021.13 Respondent filed an ERAP application on or
            before December 7, 2021, staying the instant proceeding until such time there was a final
            determination of their ERAP application.14 On April 7, 2023, both parties agreed to restore the
            matter back to the court calendar, effectively vacating the ERAP stay, and additionally agreed to

           9
             Citing Berkeley Assoc. Co. v Di Nolfi, 122 AD2d 703, 705, 505 NYS2d 630 [1986], lv dismissed 69 NY2d 804,
           505 NE2d 951, 513 NYS2d 386 [1987]; MSG Pomp Corp. v Doe, 185 AD2d 798, 586 NYS2d 965 [1992])
           (Emphasis added).
           10
              See Riverside Syndicate, Inc. v. Saltzman, 15 Misc 3d 138(A) (Citations omitted).
           11
              Emphasis Added.
           12
              See NYSCEF Doc. # 1.
           13
              See NYSCEF Doc. # 5.
           14
              See Section 8 of subpart A of part BB of chapter 56 of the laws of 2021, as amended by Section 4 of part A of
           chapter 417 of the laws of 2021.

                                                               3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                   INDEX NO. LT-313351-21/BX [HO]
  FILED: BRONX CIVIL COURT - L&T 02/08/2024 07:44 AM
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38                                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2024

            adjourn the matter to May 18, 2023.15 On May 18, 2023, both parties again consented to
            adjourning the matter to August 14, 2023.16 On July 14, 2023, Petitioner filed the instant cross-
            motion seeking use and occupancy. Petitioner’s cross-motion for use and occupancy is
            premature. First, the matter was stayed from the first court date December 7, 2021, to April 7,
            2023. Second, all adjournments, since the vacating of the stay, were requested on consent by
            both parties.17 None of the adjournments were attributable to requests solely made by the
            Respondent as required by RPAPL § 745(2). Therefore, Petitioner’s motion seeking use and
            occupancy is denied.

                                                         Conclusion

                    Based on the foregoing, Respondent’s motion to amend their answer is granted.
            Accordingly, Respondent’s Amended Answer filed as NYSCEF Doc # 18 is deemed accepted
            nunc pro tunc. Petitioner’s cross motion is denied in its entirety. This matter is scheduled to
            return to court on March 05, 2024, at 11:00 AM, for all purposes.

            Dated: February 7, 2024
                   Bronx, New York

                                                            _____________________________
                                                                     TARRINDE , 2/7/2024, 4:21:25 PM

                                                                  TRAVIS J. ARRINDELL
                                                                        JHC

            15
               See NYSCEF Doc. # 12.
            16
               See NYSCEF Doc. # 13.
            17
               See NYSCEF Doc. # 12; See also NYSCEF Doc. # 13.

                                                            4 of 4
[* 4]