Barrett v Silva

[*1] Barrett v Silva 2007 NY Slip Op 52359(U) [18 Misc 3d 126(A)] Decided on December 13, 2007 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 13, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON PATTERSON, J.P., GOLIA and BELEN, JJ
2006-1716 K C.

Clover Barrett, Respondent,

against

Edgar Silva, Appellant, -and- "John Doe" and/or "Jane Doe", Undertenants.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Thomas M. Fitzpatrick, J.), entered September 27, 2006. The order denied tenant's motion to dismiss the petition.

Order affirmed without costs.

The notice of nonrenewal underlying this owner-use holdover proceeding informed tenant, in part, that landlord sought possession of the rent-stabilized premises for her use and the use "by immediate family members of the Landlord as their primary residence in the City of New York." The notice further stated that landlord had purchased the building some eight months earlier "with the intention of converting the building into said primary residence" and that plans were being drawn for submission for Building Department permits. Tenant moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the notice of nonrenewal failed to state the facts upon which the summary proceeding is based. Landlord argued that the notice provided sufficient information to permit tenant to frame a defense. The court below denied tenant's motion, and tenant appeals. We now affirm the order.

Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2524.2 (b) requires that a notice state the facts necessary to establish the existence of the ground upon which the owner relies for the removal of the tenant (see Berkeley Assoc. Co. v Camlakides, 173 AD2d 193 [1991], affd 78 NY2d 1098 [1991]). We find that the instant notice sufficiently set forth the ground for nonrenewal and [*2]case-specific facts necessary to establish the existence of such ground and, therefore, met the requirements of the Code provision (see Peng v Van Zandt, 14 Misc 3d 138[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50272[U] [App Term, 1st Dept]). We note that to the extent tenant seeks any further information prior to trial, he can obtain information through a bill of particulars (see City of New York v Valera, 216 AD2d 237 [1995]; McGoldrick v DeCruz, 195 Misc 2d 414, 415 [App Term, 1st Dept 2003]) and through discovery (see Teichman v Ciapi, 160 Misc 2d 182 [App Term, 1st Dept 1994]). In view of the foregoing, the order is affirmed.

Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 13, 2007