Landlord, as limited by its brief, appeals from that portion of an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Michelle D. Schreiber, J.), dated May 7, 2004, which dismissed the nonpayment petition "without prejudice," and from an order of the same court and Judge, dated November 4, 2004, which denied landlord's motion for reargument and renewal.

PER CURIAM:

Order (Michelle D. Schreiber, J.), dated May 7, 2004, reversed, with $10 costs, petition reinstated, and matter remanded to Civil Court for further proceedings. Appeal from order (Michelle D. Schreiber, J.), dated November 4, 2004, dismissed, without costs, as academic.

The court's sua sponte dismissal of the nonpayment petition based principally upon the absence of a multiple dwelling registration statement is not supported by the thin record so far developed, which does not conclusively establish the building's status as a multiple dwelling (see Multiple Dwelling Law § 4[7]). Although the building was registered as an interim multiple dwelling back in the 1980's, the present record tends to indicate, and tenant does not directly deny, that only one unit was leased or used residentially during the period covered by the landlord's rent demand. The arguably mistaken dictum contained in the Loft Board's order of February 1, 2000 concerning registration requirements is neither binding on this Court nor dispositive of the issue. The petition, which set forth sufficient facts to allow tenant to frame a defense and, as amended without opposition, contained no material misrepresentations as to the ownership or rent regulatory status of the property, should not have been summarily dismissed (see Tompkins Park - St. Marks Assoc. v Boz Boz II Enter., Ltd., 177 Misc 2d 949 [1998]).
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: June 22, 2006