Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Citation
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Parent Document
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Effective Date
- 1999-10-12
Other Sections in This Document (17)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
- Paikoff v. Harris, 185 Misc. 2d 372 (1999)
Full Text
928 charsAt the outset, we note that MSG Pomp Corp. v Doe (supra) and Giannini v Stuart (supra), whatever their continuing va*376lidity in the First Judicial Department, are not controlling in this Department. The Appellate Division, Second Department, has ruled that, in the absence of prejudice to a party, it is permissible to amend the pleadings in summary proceedings even with respect to misstatements of the rent-regulated status of the tenancy (Villas of Forest Hills Co. v Lumberger, 128 AD2d 701; see, Birchwoods Tower #2 Assocs. v Schwartz, 98 AD2d 699, 700; Lin v Rivas, NYLJ, May 26, 1998, at 30, col 5 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). In the instant case, tenants were clearly prepared to litigate the status of their tenancy and were not in the least prejudiced by landlords’ claim in the petition that they were not “non-purchasing tenants.” Accordingly, the misstatement in the petition provides no basis for dismissal.