Congregation Kahal Minchas Chinuch v Drucker

[*1] Congregation Kahal Minchas Chinuch v Drucker 2010 NY Slip Op 51875(U) [29 Misc 3d 130(A)] Decided on November 4, 2010 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on November 4, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ
570115/10.

Congregation Kahal Minchas Chinuch, Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant,

against

Leslie Drucker, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent, -and- John Doe and/or Jane Doe, Respondents-Undertenants.

Landlord appeals from (1) an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jean T. Schneider, J.), dated March 5, 2009, which, upon granting tenant's motion for reargument, granted tenant summary judgment dismissing the petition in a nonpayment summary proceeding; and (2) an order (same court and Judge), dated June 9, 2009, which denied landlord's motion to reargue the aforesaid order and for leave to conduct discovery.

Per Curiam.

Order (Jean T. Schneider, J.), dated March 5, 2009, reversed, with $10 costs, tenant's motion for summary judgment denied, petition reinstated and matter remanded for further proceedings. Order (same Judge), dated June 9, 2009, to the extent appealable, affirmed, without costs. Appeal from that portion of the June 9, 2009 order which denied landlord's motion to reargue the prior order, dismissed, without costs.

Civil Court had the authority to determine whether landlord properly served notices of the maximum base rent increases and whether the increases were collectible pursuant to 9 NYCRR § 2201.6(c) (see generally Walentas v Johnes, 257 AD2d 352 [1999], lv dismissed 93 NY2d 958 [1999]). Furthermore, we conclude that service of the notices to the apartment at issue on the prescribed Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) form was sufficient in this case. Although the notices identified the tenant as "Antopol," the surname of tenant's sister and brother-in-law who previously resided in the apartment, rather than "Leslie Drucker," who succeeded to the Antopols' rent controlled tenancy, the notices were received by Drucker and she was not misled or prejudiced by the misdescription of the tenant of record (see Klein v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 17 AD3d 186 [2005]). Notably, Drucker has consistently paid the rent invoices addressed to Alan Antopol and her attorney listed "Antopol" [*2]as the tenant of the apartment in correspondence with DHCR.

THIS CONSTITUTES THS DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: November 04, 2010