Court Opinion

ID: 9965224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 20:08:25.795705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:48.623728
License: Public Domain

Lincoln Sponsor LLC v Wellington
               2024 NY Slip Op 31504(U)
                     April 24, 2024
  Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County
      Docket Number: Index No. LT-307750-23/KI
                 Judge: Juliet P. Howard
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.
  FILED: KINGS CIVIL COURT - L&T 04/24/2024 04:32 PM                                       INDEX NO. LT-307750-23/KI
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/24/2024

            CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
            COUNTY OF KINGS: HOUSING PART ____
            --------------------------------------------------------------- X
            LINCOLN SPONSOR LLC,

                                      Petitioner(s),                             Index No. LT-307750-23/KI

                                      - against -                                Motion Seq. 001

            PRISCILLA WELLINGTON,                                                DECISION/ORDER

                                      Respondent(s),

            --------------------------------------------------------------- X

            Present:         Hon. Juliet P. Howard
                             Judge, Housing Court

            Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of this motion:

            Papers                                                                            Numbered

            Notice of Motion, Affirmation, Affidavit, Exhibits and Memorandum of Law….. 1-10
            Affirmation in Opposition and Exhibits………………………………………… 11-12
            Reply Affirmation ………………………………………………………….…… 13

                                    Papers Considered: (NYSCEF Doc Nos. 10 through 24)

                                                         Procedural History

                     On March 6, 2023, Lincoln Sponsor LLC (“Petitioner”) commenced this nonpayment
            proceeding against Priscilla Wellington (“Respondent”). On April 3, 2023, Respondent filed a pro
            se answer. Subsequently, Respondent retained legal counsel, Brooklyn Legal Service (see
            NYSCEF Doc No. 9, Notice of Appearance). Respondent now moves for leave, pursuant to CPLR
            3025(b), to amend Respondent’s pro se answer and to dismiss the petition pursuant to CPLR
            3211(a)(7) and/or 3212. Petitioner submitted opposition and Respondent replied.

                                                  Respondent’s Motion to Amend

                     "Under CPLR 3025(b), a party may amend a pleading 'at any time' by leave of the court"
            (Redd v Village of Freeport, 150 AD3d 780, 781, quoting CPLR 3025[b]), and "[l]eave shall be

                                                                 1 of 4
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS CIVIL COURT - L&T 04/24/2024 04:32 PM                                         INDEX NO. LT-307750-23/KI
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/24/2024

            freely given upon such terms as may be just" (CPLR 3025[b]; see Onewest Bank, FSB v N & R
            Family Trust, 200 AD3d 902; GMAC Mtge., LLC v Coombs, 191 AD3d 37, 48). "'In the absence
            of prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay in seeking leave, such applications are to
            be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of
            merit'" (Onewest Bank, FSB v N & R Family Trust, 200 AD3d at 903, quoting Lucido v Mancuso,
            49 AD3d 220, 222; see GMAC Mtge., LLC v Coombs, 191 AD3d at 48). "'Mere lateness is not a
            barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side,
            the very elements of the laches doctrine'" (Ditech Fin., LLC v Khan, 189 AD3d 1360, 1362, quoting
            BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v Jackson, 159 AD3d 861, 863 [internal quotation marks
            omitted]; see Park v Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 183 AD3d 645, 646). "The burden of demonstrating
            prejudice or surprise, or that a proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of
            merit, falls upon the party opposing the motion" (Ditech Fin., LLC v Khan, 189 AD3d at 1362; see
            Kimso Apts., LLC v Gandhi, 24 NY3d 403, 411; Lennon v 56th & Park [NY] Owner, LLC, 199
            AD3d 64, 71-74; Park v Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 183 AD3d at 646). "The determination to permit
            or deny the amendment is committed to the sound and broad discretion of the trial court, and its
            determination will not lightly be set aside" (Park v Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 183 AD3d at 646
            [citations omitted]; see Kimso Apts., LLC v Gandhi, 24 NY3d at 411).

                   Respondent moves for leave to amend his answer to include additional affirmative defenses
            and counterclaims after consulting with legal counsel.          Although Petitioner opposes the
            amendment arguing that the affirmative defenses in the proposed amended answer are not viable
            and Petitioner would be prejudiced, the Court disagrees. Nowhere in its opposition does Petitioner
            demonstrate any surprise or prejudice from the amended answer. The Court also finds the proposed
            defenses are not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit. Furthermore, Respondent should
            be afforded the opportunity to litigate this proceeding with the benefit of counsel. As such, the
            branch of Respondent’s motion to amend is granted.

                                             Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss

                   Respondent moves to dismiss the petition, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) and/or 3212,
            because the predicate notice defective and it cannot be cured. Petitioner argues that the rent demand
            provides a good faith estimate of the rental arrears and Respondent does not dispute that she owes

                                                          2 of 4
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS CIVIL COURT - L&T 04/24/2024 04:32 PM                                           INDEX NO. LT-307750-23/KI
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/24/2024

            rent. The Court disagrees with the Petitioner and grants Respondent’s motion dismissing the
            petition.

                      Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), a dismissal is warranted only if the documentary evidence
            submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law [cite
            omitted].” (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]). A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR
            3211(a)(7), for failure to state a cause of action, must be denied if the factual allegations contained
            within "the pleadings' four corners manifest any cause of action cognizable at law." (511 W. 232nd
            Owners Corp. v Jennifer Realty Co., 98 NY2d 144, 151-52 [2002]).

                      It is undisputed that Respondent’s monthly rent is $2,36.75. Petitioner’s fourteen-day rent
            demand states that the “TOTAL RENT $9,220.16” should be paid by Respondent within the
            fourteen days from the day of service of the demand (NYSCEF Doc. No 15). The demand also
            states: “**SEE RIDER ATTACHED **” The attached rider is a ledger that starts in June of 2022
            through January of 2023, with a $9,220.16 balance. The ledger does not only reflect the monthly
            rent, but also includes an electric charge.
                      RPAPL § 711(2) requires that the rent demand be clear, unequivocal and provide the tenant
            with “actual notice of the alleged amount due, period for which the rental claim is made ... and an
            approximate good faith sum of rent assertedly due for each such period.” (EOM 106-15 217th
            Corp. v Severine, 62 Misc 3d 141[A], [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]
            [quoting Dendy v McAlpine, 27 Misc 3d 138[A] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists
            2010]).
                      Courts have found that rent demands including additional charges outside of rent fail to
            comply with the requirements of RPAPL 711. (Meisels Family, Inc v Crittleton, 78 Misc 3d
            1236[A] [Civ Ct, Kings County 2023]; Pantiago Professional Ctr., LLC v Stankevich, 60 Misc 3d
            133[A] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2018]). In Pantiago Professional Ctr., LLC, the
            Appellate Term found that the rent demand was defective and “not sufficiently specific” where it
            sought common charges. In Meisels Family, Inc v Crittleton, the rent ledger attached to the rent
            demand had additional charges and this Court found that it is insufficient to bring the predicate
            notice within the requirement of RPAPL 711.
                      Here, Respondent was confused and could not determine the amount owed on the rent
            demand (NSYCEF Doc No. 12). Similar to Pantiago Professional Ctr., LLC and Meisels Family,

                                                           3 of 4
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS CIVIL COURT - L&T 04/24/2024 04:32 PM                                       INDEX NO. LT-307750-23/KI
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/24/2024

            Inc v Crittleton, the rent demand is not clear as to the outstanding rent owed and for what period
            and the rider/ledger contains an additional charge, electric charge (NYSCEF Doc. No 15). The
            ledger begins in June of 2022 through January of 2023, but there is an “Balance Forward” of
            $3,659.88 and it is unclear as to the origin of that amount. The rent demand must be clear and
            specific so that it could clearly inform the tenant what is owed and for what period. As such, the
            Court finds that the rent demand in this matter is defective and since it cannot be cured,
            Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition is granted without prejudice (see Chinatown Apts. v
            Chu Cho Lam, 51 NY2d 786, 788, 412 N.E.2d 1312, 433 N.Y.S.2d 86 [1980]).
                   Accordingly, Respondent’s motion is granted in its entirety and the petition is dismissed

            without prejudice.

                   This constitutes the Decision and Order of this court.

            Dated: Brooklyn, New York
                   April 24, 2024                        ___________________________
                                                               Hon. JULIET P. HOWARD
                                                                      J.H.C.

                                                         4 of 4
[* 4]