Sanjurjo v Milio, 2021 NY Slip Op 50208(U) [70 Misc 3d 1224(A)]

Footnote 2:See affidavit of service from
Sadria Dominguez dated January 20, 2021.

Footnote 3:NYSCEF Doc. No. 8 and 9.

Footnote 4:See Multiple Dwelling Law
("MDL") § 325(1).

Footnote 5:(see also Ebanks v Skyline NYC, LLC,
70 AD3d 943, 945, 896 NYS2d 369 [2nd Dept 2010]).

Footnote 6:NYSCEF Doc. No. 11 and 12.

Footnote 7:The court is perplexed by
respondent's argument that "[u]nlike in an amended answer, where leave may be freely granted,
the Court does not have the option to grant leave to amend a Petition that was made with an
Order to Show Cause." CPLR § 3025 applies to all pleadings, not just answers. (see also, Bishop v Maurer, 83 AD3d
483, 485, 921 NYS2d 224 [1st Dept 2011] [A motion for leave to amend the
complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) should be freely granted unless the proposed
amendment is palpably insufficient to state a cause of action or is patently devoid of merit]
(emphasis added)). Respondent offers no authority holding that a case commenced by order to
show cause should be treated differently.

Footnote 8:The court notes that petitioner
withdrew her second cause of action, seeking civil penalties, without prejudice. Respondent may
raise delay in obtaining permits as a defense to civil penalties and/or contempt if sought in the
future.

Footnote 9:February 22, 2021 Milio
affidavit at 4-7.

Footnote 10:Sanjurjo affidavit at 3.

Footnote 11:Amended petition at 28.

Footnote 12:Id at par. 25 and
wherefore clause at no. 3.

Footnote 13:February 11, Sanjurjo
affidavit at 9.

Footnote 14:The exception to the
"mootness doctrine" does not apply here: "(1) a likelihood of repetition, either between the
parties or among other members of the public; (2) a phenomenon typically evading review; and