Tenant appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court, New York County (Cyril K. Bedford, J.), entered November 12, 2003, after a nonjury trial, which awarded landlord possession and rent arrears in the sum of $9,680 in a nonpayment summary proceeding, and from an order (same court and Judge), entered February 19, 2004, which denied tenant's post-trial motion to vacate the final judgment and dismiss the petition.

Per Curiam:

Final judgment (Cyril K. Bedford, J.), entered November 12, 2003, and order (Cyril K. Bedford, J.), entered February 19, 2004, affirmed, without costs.

We find no abuse of discretion in the grant of landlord's motion to amend the petition to conform to the proof concerning the rent regulatory status of the apartment premises (see CPLR 3025[c]; Villas of Forest Hills Co., v Lumberger, 128 AD2d 701 [1987]), where tenant failed to object to the misstatement in the petition during the trial proceedings (see 473 West Associates v Murdoch, 276 AD2d 360 [2000]; Toa Construction Co. v Thomas, 9 Misc 3d 129[A] [2005]) or to demonstrate that she was prejudiced by the amendment (Gonfiantini v Zino, 184 AD2d 368 [1992]; 17th Holding LLC v Rivera, 195 Misc 2d 531 [2002]). While petitions in summary proceedings must set forth sufficient facts so that the respondent may adequately frame a defense, judicial engraftment of "hypertechnical restrictions" is disapproved (Reich v Cochran, 201 NY 450, 455 [1911]). Tenant having stated no basis why the petition "should be subject to strict construction as a matter of equity" (Hughes v Lenox Hill Hosp., 226 AD2d 4, 18 [1996]), lv dismissed in part and denied in part, 90 NY2d 829 [1997]), the isolated misstatement in the petition belatedly complained of by tenant did not mandate dismissal of the otherwise meritorious nonpayment proceeding (cf. MSG Pomp Corp. v Doe, 185 AD2d 798 [1992]).

We have considered tenant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.
Decision Date: August 02, 2006