In this case, landlord did not wait a prolonged period to apprise tenant of the Casado increases. To the contrary, landlord moved less than a month after Casado was decided to amend its petition to assert the increases (cf. 89-21 153, LLC v Cruz, 70 Misc 3d at 24 [landlord waived right to Casado arrears where it filed its petition seeking those arrears over seven{**75 Misc 3d at 39} years after the Court of Appeals' decision in Casado]). Moreover, Matter of 1437 Carroll involved an appeal from an article 78 proceeding, where the standard of review was limited to whether DHCR's determination was arbitrary and capricious, and without a rational basis in the record (see Matter of 1437 Carroll, LLC, 150 AD3d at 1224; see also CPLR 7803 [3]). Here, in contrast, the Civil Court made no determination as to the merits of the increases, but simply permitted landlord to amend its petition to allege those increases (cf. 89-21 153, LLC v Cruz, 70 Misc 3d at 24-25 [affirming order granting tenants' motion for summary judgment on the ground that landlord and its predecessor had waived the right to seek Casado arrears]). Since the amendment was sought shortly after Casado, we conclude that tenant had sufficient notice of landlord's right to seek Casado increases and was not prejudiced by the amendment.