Tamoor Law, P.C. (Jan Mahmood Tamoor of counsel), for appellants. Law Firm of Duskin and Crowe, Esq. (Steven P. Crowe of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (Kimberly Slade, J.), dated July 31, 2023. The order denied tenants' motion to dismiss the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this holdover proceeding, tenants moved to dismiss the petition, arguing, in essence, that the notice of petition and petition failed to name necessary parties because it misstated their names. By order dated July 31, 2023, the Civil Court (Kimberly Slade, J.) denied the motion.

A notice of petition which misstates a respondent's name is sufficient as long as it "adequately describes the respondent in a manner that he would have known from the description that he was the party intended" (Lenox Rd. Utica Ave. Realty v Spencer, 184 Misc 2d 628, 629 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2000], citing Lebowitz v Fieldston Travel Bur., Inc., 181 AD2d 481 [1992]).

Here, landlord alleges, and tenants do not deny, that the names by which landlord identified tenants in the notice of petition and petition are the names by which tenants identified [*2]themselves when they applied to rent the premises, and the names they use on social media. Consequently, tenants should have known that they were the individuals intended to be the respondents in this proceeding (see Lenox Road Utica Ave. Realty v Spencer, 184 Misc 2d 628). We note that, pursuant to CPLR 1024, once the name of a party becomes known, "all subsequent proceedings shall be taken under the true name and all prior proceedings shall be deemed amended accordingly."

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

TOUSSAINT and HOM, JJ., concur.

MUNDY, J.P., taking no part.