breach. As a threshold matter, Tenant is correct that out of the seven legal proceedings
relied upon by Landlord in bringing this chronic rent delinquency proceeding, two
should be barred from consideration under the Statute of Limitations of CPLR 213(2), as
having been commenced more than six years prior to this contractual proceeding
(specifically, Index Nos. 044229/2007 and 053329/2007) (see Westminster Props.
Ltd. v Kass, 163 Misc 2d 773, 774 [AT 1st Dept 1995]). As such, Tenant's motion is
partially granted dismissing any consideration of those time-barred proceedings prior to
2008.
Moreover, two of the nonpayment proceedings, Ripple Realty Corp. v Campbell
(Index Nos. 043299/2010) and Harrison Circle, LP v LaGuerre (Index No.
02799/2013), which are listed on the Notice of Default as predicates to the instant
proceeding do not involve the subject Premises or even the parties. They are totally
unrelated to this matter and cannot be considered herein. In its motion to amend,
Landlord explains that it mistakenly transposed some of the digits of the Index Numbers
and asks for leave to amend its Notice of Default. However, it is well-settled that a
predicate notice is a condition precedent to a holdover proceeding which cannot be
amended nunc pro tunc (see Chinatown Apts., Inc. v Lam, 51 NY2d 786
[1980]). Indeed, since a predicate notice is not considered a pleading, it is unamendable
(see 185 E. 85th St. v Gravanis, NYLJ, Jan. 21, 1981, at 6, col 2 [AT 1st 1981]).
As such, the mistaken Index numbers in the Notice of Default cannot be amended,
regardless of the de minimis nature of the defect. Therefore, only the additional three
proceedings can be legally relied upon in examining the sufficiency of the predicate
notice of chronic rent delinquency.