acting through another. This sufficiently places the petition under RPAPL § 721(1) as one
brought [*3]by the landlord not the attorney. Heritage Realty
Corp. V. Heard, 77 Misc 2d 72, 353 NYS2d 282 (Civil Ct., NY 1973); Lee v.
Parchini, 82 Misc 2d 843, 370 NYS2d 843, 370 NYS2d 401 (Dist. Ct., Nassau, 1975)); cf.
300 West Realty Co. v. Wood, 69 Misc 2d 580, 330 NYS2d 524 (Civil Court, NY, 1971)
aff'd no opinion 69 Misc 2d 582, 330 NYS2d 527 (App.T. 1st Dept. 1972).
No claim of confusion, prejudice or deception of respondent appears in the papers nor is any
apparent to the Court. The presence in the caption and preamble of a reference to petitioner's
representative is therefore mere surplusage.
In Rhodes v. Shankle, 137 Misc 2d 1076, 523 NYS2d 714 (Dist. Ct. Nassau 1987), a
case almost identical to the instant action, the caption of the petition and notice of petition
indicated that William Rhodes was the owner and landlord of the premises and the party
authorized to maintain a proceeding to recover the real property. However, the body of the
petition, similar to the action herein, stated, "Anthony Rhodes, agent of William Rhodes" and is
also signed by Anthony Rhodes.
The Court, quoting from Gamliali, supra , held at page 1077:
"[Former] [s]ubdivision 8 of section 721 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings
Law [which permitted an attorney or other specified representative of the landlord to bring
an eviction proceeding] was repealed because it resulted in confused judgments which did not
name the real party in interest and because the interposition of counterclaims was cumbersome
(citations omitted)." Here, the evil sought to be guarded against by the 1977 amendment is not