After a hearing on the merits, the Court issued a warrant of eviction with an execution date of June 1, 2024. The Respondent made an oral application for a stay of the warrant of eviction.

Petitioner commenced this action with a 30 day notice vice a 60 notice as required by RPAPL section 226-c. The Respondent has resided at the property for approximately 2 years, has lived in Little Falls her whole life, has five children that attend the city school district, and there are limited rentals available in the local area.

The issues in this case are whether the Court should consider the improper notice a procedural irregularity and also whether the Court should grant Respondent a stay.

CPLR §2001 allows the court to disregard procedural irregularities. RPAPL § 753 allows for a stay upon a showing of an extreme hardship.

Because 60 days elapsed between the date of the 30 day notice and the service of the petition, the Court will disregard the notice period as a procedural irregularity.

With respect to the stay, although RPAPL §753 could require the deposit of the total arrears in escrow, the statute allows the court to set a different amount in "installments" and "at the rate for which the applicant was liable". Based on the hardship presented by the Respondent, [*2]the Court will give her a break by staying the execution of the warrant of eviction until September 1, 2024, provided that she make installment payments of $675 on June 1, July 1, and August 1, 2024. If Defendant does not pay according to this schedule, then the Petitioner can make an application on notice to the Defendant to vacate the stay.

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. The warrant of eviction of this Court dated May 17, 2024, shall be stayed upon the Defendant's payment of $675 on June 1, July 1, and August 1, 2024.

2. The Petitioner may apply on notice to the Defendant to vacate the stay if she does not pay according to the schedule.

This is the Decision and Order of the Court.