present. The owner and landlord William Rhodes, the party in interest, is clearly identified as
such. The real problem here is perhaps an inversion occurring in draftmanship. It is clear that if
the petition read, "The petition of William Rhodes by Anthony Rhodes, his agent ..." there would
be no problem. The Court does not believe such an apparently inadvertent inversion of language
should be the basis of dismissing the petition, so long as it is clear, as it is here, that the
petitioner is William Rhodes, a party authorized to maintain the proceeding. To decide otherwise
in this case, on the particular facts here present, would glorify form over substance.
Also, see Barstow Road Owners v. Billing, 179 Misc 2d 958, 687 NYS2d 845 (Dist.
Ct. Nassau 1998).
In addition to the foregoing, in the instant action, the Tenant had testified that he placed over
a dozen phone calls to Marisa DeVito regarding the condition of the premises because he was
told by all the other tenants that "she ran the building." The Tenant also testified that Marisa
DeVito was related to Louis DeVito (her husband). The Tenant further testified that he sent all
rent checks to P.O. Box 127. As it turns out, Respondent's Exhibit "G" is a letter from Marisa
DeVito to the Tenant regarding the failure to pay rent for several months. The address on the
letterhead for Mrs. DeVito is "Lenn Property, LLC, P.O. Box 127 ...". Clearly, Tenant knew the
DeVito's managed the Premises as the Landlord's agent. The P.O. Box 127 was set up by Mr.
DeVito. Mr. DeVito testified he signed all leases including the original lease in this action as,
"Louis DeVito for Lenn Property, LLC.".
Finally, Louis DeVito testified that he is the CPA and has acted as counsel for the Landlord,