Tompkins Park--St. Marks Associates v. Boz Boz II Enterprises, Ltd., PARK--ST

• Decision Date: 15 July 1998
• Docket Number: PARK--ST
• Parties: , 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 98,529 TOMPKINSMARKS ASSOCIATES, Appellant, v. BOZ BOZ II ENTERPRISES, LTD., Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term

Page 236

679 N.Y.S.2d 236

177 Misc.2d 949, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 98,529

TOMPKINS PARK--ST. MARKS ASSOCIATES, Appellant, v. BOZ BOZ II ENTERPRISES, LTD., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

July 15, 1998.

Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler & Schwartz, P.C., New York City (Paul N. Gruber, of counsel), for appellant.

Before PARNESS, P.J., and FREEDMAN and DAVIS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Order dated November 12, 1997 (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.) reversed, with $10 costs, tenant's motion to dismiss the nonpayment petition is denied, and the matter is remanded to the Civil Court for further proceedings.

The business nonpayment petition stated landlord's interest in the premises; stated tenant's interest and its relationship to landlord under a written rental agreement; accurately described the premises sought to be recovered; and set forth the amounts of the arrearages and periods for which they were due. In such form the petition complied with the pleading requirements of RPAPL § 741, and should not have been dismissed because it failed to state the date or terms of the parties' lease. This is not a case where there are material misrepresentations in the petition as to the ownership or regulatory status of the property (cf. MSG Pomp Corp. v. Doe, 185 A.D.2d 798, 586 N.Y.S.2d 965). While petitions in summary proceedings must set forth sufficient facts so that the respondent may adequately frame a defense, judicial engraftment of "hypercritical restrictions" is disapproved (Reich v. Cochran, 201 N.Y. 450, 455, 94 N.E. 1080).