Petitioner failed to offer any testimony or documentary evidence at trial that a five day written demand as required by the lease was served on the respondent [FN1]. In any summary proceeding the petitioner must allege and prove that he has served the proper notice on the tenant. Kepo, Inc. V. Romano, 85 AD2d 621 (2nd Dept. 1981) appeal denied 56 NY2d 505; Oberlies v. Oliva, 45 Misc 2d 533 (App. Term First Dept. 1964).Respondent is correct in his assertion that "Proof of a demand for rent is a . . . requisite to maintain a summary proceeding and failure to provide proof calls for dismissal of the action." Although in some situations defects in pleadings are amendable, defects in the content or service of the predicate notice are not subject to cure and require that the proceeding be dismissed. Solack Estates v. Goodman, 102 Misc 2d 504 (App. Term 1st Dept. 1979) aff'd 78 AD2d 512 (1st Dept. 1980); 25-35 Equity Holdings, Inc. V. Toles, 2001 NY Slip Op. 40036U, 2000 NY Misc. LEXIS 619 (Civ. Ct. New York). In Fitzgerald v. Washington, 80 Misc 2d 861 (Civ. Ct. New York 1975) the [*4]court held that if a petitioner fails at trial to cure a defect in his pleading and fails to testify at trial as to the facts and offer documentary evidence of proper demand of rent arrears the petition must be dismissed based upon the failure by the petitioner to state a claim on which relief could be granted. R.P.A.P. L. 741.