Uddin v Herrera

[*1] Uddin v Herrera 2017 NY Slip Op 51271(U) Decided on May 18, 2017 Civil Court Of The City Of New York, Queens County Nembhard, J. 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 18, 2017
Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County

Kukhon Uddin, Petitioner-Landlord,

against

Lyssette Herrera, Respondent-Tenant. "JOHN DOE" & "JANE DOE" Undertenants.



L & T 51310/17



David J. Melo, Esq. appearing for Petitioner

Ernie Mui, Esq., Queens Legal Services appearing for Respondent
Clifton Nembhard, J.

Respondent, by her attorney, moves this court for an order pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) and/or (7), dismissing the petition based on petitioner's alleged failure to plead respondent's Section 8 status in the petition and for failing to serve the Petition and Notice of Petition on the New York City Housing Authority.

Petitioner opposes the motion and claims that as a recent purchaser of the premises, in September 2016, he did not enter into a lease with respondent nor did he receive rent checks from the New York City Housing Authority.

Respondent's motion is granted to the extent that the petition is dismissed for the reasons stated in respondent's motion. Petitioner clearly failed to comply with the requirements of RPAPL 741(1) in that he did not accurately state respondent's interest in the premises, as well as paragraph 6(b)(2) of the Williams Second Partial Consent Judgment which requires service of the Petition and Notice of Petition on the New York City Housing Authority upon commencement of the proceeding. Petitioner acknowledges and demonstrates awareness of respondent's status with NYCHA in that he received a letter from NYCHA, attached to his opposition as Exhibit B, informing him of this relationship, and served the predicate notice on them. Even if he was unaware of this status, which he does not allege, it does not change that status with regard to respondent's rights, protections, and statutory requirements.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated: May 18, 2017

Hon. Clifton Nembhard