TENANT FAILED TO SUPPORT CONTENTIONS WITH SWORN (OR AFFIRMED TO) STATEMENT
In a summary holdover (nuisance) proceeding, filed with the New York County Civil Court, the tenants alleged a series of defenses. And after the judge denied five motions made by them to dismiss the case, an appeal ensued.
On its review of the record, the Appellate Term, First Department, noted that the tenants’ service objections were “properly rejected,” because the tenants failed to specifically rebut the representations made in the process server’s affidavit – which, according to the court, constituted “prima facie evidence of proper service.”
Apparently, the tenants neglected to submit a sworn (or affirmed to) statement in response. And in the absence of “competent evidence,” the court concluded that the tenants’ improper service claims could not survive.
For “similar reasons,” the AT1 “rejected” the contention that the termination notice served on the tenants differed from the one on file with the court. And, as for its legal sufficiency, the appellate court concluded that the notice set forth the requisite factual specificity which “allowed tenants to prepare a defense,” and that it otherwise met the requirements of the Rent Stabilization Code.
The AT1 noted that the argument that the landlord had waived the termination, by the subsequent acceptance of rent, was contradicted by the tenants’ in-court admission that post-termination rent checks had been returned by the owner.
And, as for the misspelling of the tenants’ last name – with the paperwork showing an “L,” rather than an “I” – the AT1 didn’t think that error triggered any “discernible prejudice” and that it “did not render the proceeding jurisdictionally defective.”
Given that backdrop, the AT1 left the denial of the tenants’ motions undisturbed.
Now that seemed like a nuisance.
# # #
DECISION