times. He testified receiving two money orders last week from Davis for $51.00 and $301.00.
Petitioner's counsel objected to the court considering Respondent's warranty of habitability claim
in determining the money judgment being sought by Petitioner, arguing that Respondent has not
submitted sufficient proof to support any rent abatement. The Petitioner did not produce a rent
ledger. At the hearing, the Petitioner failed to establish the rents in arrears for the court to
determine if Respondent was in default.
A summary proceeding is a special proceeding governed entirely by statute and it is well
established that there must be strict compliance with the statutory requirements to give the court
jurisdiction (See Goldman Bros. v. Forester, 62 Misc 2d 812 [NY Civ. Ct. 1970]). A
petition in a summary proceeding is sufficient if it sets forth sufficient facts so that respondent
may adequately frame a defense (Tompkins Park-St. Marks Associates v. Boz Boz II
Enterprises, Ltd., 177 Misc 2d 949 [1st dept. 1998]).
RPAPL § 741 provides that a petition must state, inter alia, the interest a tenant
has in the premises and the facts upon which a proceeding is based. When the tenancy is subject
to a specific rent regulation, the petition must state the tenant's regulatory status because this
status will determine the scope of the tenant's rights in the summary proceeding (Cintron v
Pandis, 34 Misc 3d 152 (A), 950 NYS2d, [App.Term, 2nd dept. 2012]). Despite its
amendability, a petition that fails to sufficiently state the facts upon which it is based may be
dismissed (Jericho Project Lessee v
Marte-Travera, 67 Misc 3d 1204 (A) [Civ Ct. Bronx Co. 2020]). A simple misstatement
concerning the regulatory status of a tenancy will not render the petition jurisdictionally defective