Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Gary F. Marton, J.), dated October 30, 2007, which denied landlord's motion to renew a prior order denying its motion for leave to conduct discovery in a nonprimary residence holdover proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Gary F. Marton, J.), dated October 30, 2007, reversed, without costs, renewal granted, and, upon renewal, tenant is directed to submit to deposition at a time and place to be specified in a written notice of at least 10 days to be given by landlord or at such other time and place as the parties shall agree.

Any deficiencies that may have existed in the landlord's initial motion for leave to conduct discovery were remedied in its renewed discovery motion, which clearly sufficed to establish "ample need" (New York Univ. v Farkas,121 Misc 2d 643, 647 [1983]) for disclosure in this nonprimary residence holdover proceeding (see Hughes v Lenox Hill Hosp., 226 AD2d 4, 18 [1996], lv dismissed in part, denied in part, 90 NY2d 829 [1997]). The landlord's renewed submission included an affidavit of the building's resident superintendent indicating that the affiant seldomly saw tenant at the premises for a two-year period, as well as an affidavit by a representative of the landlord's management firm stating that he conducted a public records search which showed tenant's address to be at a specified location in Los Angeles. Renewal was warranted in the interest of "substantive fairness" and in the absence of any prejudice [*2]
to tenant by the brief delay (see Garner v Latimer, 306 AD2d 209, 210 [2003]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE
COURT.
Decision Date: April 22, 2008