Narrative Opinion Summary
Order dated November 12, 1997, is reversed, and the tenant’s motion to dismiss the nonpayment petition is denied, with $10 in costs awarded. The business nonpayment petition adequately established the landlord's interest in the premises, the tenant's interest and relationship under a written rental agreement, a clear description of the premises, and detailed amounts of arrears and the periods owed. The petition met the pleading requirements outlined in RPAPL 741 and should not have been dismissed for lacking the date or terms of the lease. There were no material misrepresentations regarding ownership or regulatory status of the property. The court emphasized that while summary proceedings must present sufficient facts for the respondent to formulate a defense, overly stringent criteria should not be imposed. Judges Parness, Freedman, and Davis concur with this opinion.
Legal Issues Addressed
Establishing Interests in Nonpayment Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the landlord's petition sufficiently established both the landlord's and tenant's interests and relationship under a written rental agreement.
Reasoning: The business nonpayment petition adequately established the landlord's interest in the premises, the tenant's interest and relationship under a written rental agreement, a clear description of the premises, and detailed amounts of arrears and the periods owed.
Material Misrepresentations in Summary Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court concluded that no material misrepresentations regarding ownership or regulatory status of the property were present in the landlord's petition.
Reasoning: There were no material misrepresentations regarding ownership or regulatory status of the property.
Pleading Requirements under RPAPL 741subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the landlord's nonpayment petition adequately met the statutory pleading requirements despite lacking the date or terms of the lease.
Reasoning: The petition met the pleading requirements outlined in RPAPL 741 and should not have been dismissed for lacking the date or terms of the lease.
Standards for Summary Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court emphasized that summary proceedings should present sufficient facts to allow the respondent to formulate a defense, without imposing overly stringent criteria.
Reasoning: The court emphasized that while summary proceedings must present sufficient facts for the respondent to formulate a defense, overly stringent criteria should not be imposed.