Case Type

Holdover-Lease Expiration

Housing Type

Rent Stabilized

Court

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT

County

Queens County (Queens)

L&T / Index / Case / Docket / Clerk's Number

2024-307 Q C

Slip Opinion Number

2025 NY Slip Op 25128

Petitioner

14-16 30th Road, LLC

Respondent

Walid Hassan, "John Doe", "Jane Doe"

Judge

Mundy, Marina Cora; Ottley, Lisa S; Quiñones, Joanne D

Decision/Order Date

2025-05-23

Posture

Other

Disposition

Motion Granted for Landlord

Winner

Landlord Substantially Won

Synopsis

This opinion affirms the Civil Court's order in a holdover proceeding concerning a rent-stabilized tenancy. The landlord commenced the action during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to a delay in assigning a return date, consistent with CCM-210. The tenant cross-moved to dismiss, arguing improper service under RPAPL 733(1) because the petition was served years before a return date was set. The Appellate Term affirmed the Civil Court's decision, which allowed the landlord to re-serve an amended notice of petition with a new return date. The court emphasized that this solution was "reasonably calculated...to apprise" the tenant, acknowledging the procedural difficulties caused by pandemic-era directives.

Keywords

Amended NOP Permitted; 733(1); In this failure to sign a lease holdover, commenced during the COVID-19 pandemic when, pursuant to CCM-210, holdover proceedings were not assigned return dates and such dates would be assigned “at a future date”, the court denied the tenant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to RPAPL 733(1). The pro se tenant argued that because the petition and notice of petition were not served between 10 and 17 days before the return date but were served three and a half years before the initial return date. The Appellate Term agreed with the lower court’s reasoning, namely, that the issues created by “delayed service in accordance with CCM-210” were prejudicial to landlords, and the court’s solution of allowing an amendment of the notice of petition to include a new return date, and allowing the landlord to re-serve the petition and amended notice of petition “to afford the landlord the opportunity to comply with RPAPL 733(1), was ‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances to apprise [tenant] of the pendency of the action and afford [him] an opportunity to present [his] objections’ (Ruffin v Lion Corp, 15 NY3d 578, 582 [2010]) . . .

Download

Takedown Policy

Share

COinS