Landlord and Tenant - Summary Proceedings - Dismissal for Failure to Comply with Pleading Requirements of Good Cause Eviction Law

The Legal Aid Society, Bronx (Megan Carroll of counsel), for Junior Brown, respondent.

Mark H. Cohen & Associates P.C., Bronx, for petitioner.

The decision and order on this motion is as follows:{**86 Misc 3d at 866}

In this holdover proceeding, petitioner 1303 Needham Realty LLC (petitioner) seeks possession of the allegedly unregulated subject premises on grounds that respondent Junior Brown's (respondent) month-to-month tenancy was terminated pursuant to a 90-day Real Property Law § 232-a notice served on February 23, 2024. Respondent now moves to dismiss this proceeding under CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), on grounds that petitioner failed to comply with RPAPL 741 (4)-(5) and Real Property Law §§ 214-216, by failing to comply with the pleading requirements for the recently enacted Good Cause Eviction Law (L 2024, ch 56, § 1, part HH) (GCEL). Respondent's motion is hereby granted, and this proceeding is dismissed under CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), because the petition does not comply with subdivisions (5-a) and (5-b) of RPAPL 741.

The sufficiency of a petition in a summary eviction proceeding is governed by RPAPL 741, which requires, among other things, that the pleading "1. [s]tate the interest of the petitioner in the premises from which removal is sought[;] 2. [s]tate the respondent's interest in the premises and his relationship to petitioner with regard thereto[;] 3. [d]escribe the premises from which removal is sought[;] 4. [s]tate the facts upon which the special proceeding is based." "Thus, RPAPL 741 ensures that a tenant will be informed of the factual and legal claims that he or she will have to meet and enables the tenant to interpose whatever defenses are available." ([*2]MSG Pomp Corp. v Doe, 185 AD2d 798, 800 [1st Dept 1992].) The GCEL modified RPAPL 741 and added subdivisions (5-a) and (5-b), respectively requiring a petitioner landlord to "[a]ppend or incorporate the notice required pursuant to section two hundred thirty-one-c of the real property law [to the petition]" and to "append or incorporate" information required by "subdivision one of section two hundred fourteen of the real property law [to the petition]." (L 2024, ch 56, § 1, part HH, § 5.)

While these RPAPL 741 amendments did not take effect until August 18, 2024, Real Property Law § 215, providing that "[n]o landlord shall, by action to evict or to recover possession, by exclusion from possession, by failure to renew any lease, or otherwise, remove any tenant from housing accommodations covered by section two hundred fourteen of this article except for good cause as defined in section two hundred sixteen of this article," went into effect on April 20, 2024. (See L 2024, ch 56, § 1, part HH, § 7 ["This act shall take effect immediately and shall apply to actions and proceedings commenced on or after{**86 Misc 3d at 867} such effective date (of April 20, 2024); provided, however, that: (a) sections two, three, four, and five of this act shall take effect on the one hundred twentieth day after this act shall have become a law"].)

This proceeding was commenced on June 6, 2024, and the petition, dated June 1, 2024 (NY St Cts Elec Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 1), contains no mention of the GCEL.^[FN1] Petitioner instead argues that "[w]hile the Good Cause Eviction law was passed on April 20, 2024, it did not go into effect until August 18, 2024." (NYSCEF Doc No. 16 ¶ 11.) In other words, petitioner's opposition is predicated on the claim that the petition did not need to plead whether the GCEL applied to the subject premises, because the petition was filed before August 18, 2024. However, what petitioner fails to realize is that, whether or not RPAPL 741 required petitioner landlords to plead the applicability of, and any exemptions to, the GCEL before August 18, 2024, subdivisions (5-a) and (5-b) of RPAPL 741 are now in effect and petitioner—despite being represented by counsel—has neither moved nor cross-moved to amend the petition to comply with that statutory mandate.^[FN2]

In light of petitioner's failure to seek leave to amend the petition to conform with the pleading requirements of subdivisions (5-a) and (5-b) of RPAPL 741, despite having had months [*3]of advance notice that these subdivisions would be taking effect on August 18, 2024, respondent's motion is hereby granted, and this matter is dismissed.