Petitioner brings this commercial holdover summary proceeding to regain possession of premises located at 152 West 14th Street, as well as to collect $111,128.51 representing rental arrears for use and occupancy from the respondents. This matter was tried by the court on April 2, 2007. At the trial petitioner presented the testimony of Mr. Paul Steinberg, an employee of S.W. Management, petitioner's managing agent. Respondent did not testify.

Mr. Steinberg stated that he is an employee of S.W. Management and in charge of the accounts receivable for Respondent's account. Petitioner and Respondent entered into a lease for the premises located at 152 West 14th Street on May 9, 1995. The lease began on June 1st. 1995 and ended on May 31st. 2005 [See Petitioner's No.3 in evidence, lease]. Following the termination of the lease S.W. Management sent [*2]respondent a Month to Month letter dated June 1, 2005. The letter indicated respondent was now a month to month tenant at a monthly rent of $13,000.00 per month [see Petitioner's 4 in evidence].By letter dated July 19, 2005 petitioner informed respondent that beginning September 1st. 2005 its new rent shall be $14,100.00 per month. This letter also requested that respondent contact the sender in the event it was interested in entering into a lease agreement. [see petitioner's 5 in evidence]. Both letters were in S. W. Management Letterhead and signed by Paul Steinberg. Petitioner also submitted a copy of the deed to the premises, certified on April 2nd. 2007 [ Petitioner's 1 in evidence], a copy of the rent history printed from S. W. Management's computer system showing a balance due and owing as of April 1, 2007 of $111,128.51[Petitioner's 3 in evidence], and the Notice of Termination [ Petitioner's 6 in evidence]. On re-direct petitioner introduced without objection a multiple dwelling registration [see petitioner's #

7 MDR] and then petitioner rested.

Respondent did not present any witnesses. On closing respondent moved to dismiss the proceeding on the following grounds:

1- the predicate notice is defective under Siegel v. Kentucky Fried Chicken because the person that signed it is not the agent or attorney, the name of the signer is not printed, the signature is illegible and there is no certificate of authority annexed to the predicate notice authorizing the signer to act on behalf of the landlord.

2- the predicate notice was only served on the tenant; However, the notice of petition and petition was served on and names four respondents, therefore the proceeding should be dismissed as to the other parties.

3- the 30 day notice was served while there was another proceeding still pending between the parties under index No. 99814/06.

4- the petition should be dismissed as The petition in this proceeding states the following: " the building in which the premises are located is not a multiple dwelling; the premises are located in a building which is otherwise a multiple dwelling and the premises were leased and are used for commercial purposes." This is conflicting information and a jurisdictional defect.

LEGAL ANALYSIS [*3]

"As a general rule, the notice of termination must be signed by the landlord or if the landlord's agent or attorney is named in the lease, the landlord's agent or attorney. [Linroc Enterprises, Inc. V. 1359 Broadway Associates, 186 AD2d 95, 588 NYS2d 34 (1st. Dept. 1992); Siegel v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, 108 AD2d 218, 488 NYS2d 744 (2nd. Dept. 1985), Affd. 67 NY2d 792, 492 NE2d 390, 501 NYS2d 317(1986)]. If the Landlord's agent or attorney is not named in the lease and the notices of termination is signed by the agent or attorney, proof of agency must be affixed to the notice ( Siegel v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, Supra; Whitefriars East Co. V. Labyrinth Data Processing Enterprises Ltd., 132 Misc 2d 668, 504 NYS2d 1010[ NY City Civ. Ct. 1986]). However, if the tenant had previous dealings with the agent or attorney and therefore knows that he has been granted authority by the landlord, a notice to terminate signed by that agent or attorney can be valid even without proof of the relationship to the landlord ( Tom's Triangle Inc. V. First Quality Leasing of America Inc., 4/3/2002 N.Y.L.J. 21, Col. 2[Dist Ct. Nassau Co.). Furthermore, the termination notice is valid if it is signed by the registered managing agent, even if proof of agency is not affixed to the notice( Pamela Equities Corp v. Fattore, 4/20/89 N.Y.L.J. 23, Col. 2 [App. Term 1st. Dept.]; Melohn v. Guy, 3/21/889 N.Y.L.J. 21, Col.2 [App. Term 1st. Dept.]).

In this case the termination notice was signed by an agent with whom respondent had previous dealings, when the month to month tenancies had been extended by letters dated June 1st. And July 19th, 2005, and knew that the agent had been granted authority by the landlord. Finally the termination notice was served pursuant to RPL §232-a.

The lessor must obtain a judgment of possession against the lessee and may not proceed directly against the undertenant, whether a licensee, subtenant or occupant . Due process requires only that, for the warrant to be effective against a subtenant, licensee or occupant he be made a party to the proceeding, either by naming him in and serving him with the petition and notice of petition or by joining him as a party during the pendency of the proceeding (170 West 85th Street Tenant's Association v. Cruz, 173 AD2d 338, 569 NYS2d 705[App. Div. 1st. Dept. 1991]).

There was no need to serve the predicate notices upon respondent Juana Monegro, Best Luggage Store Inc., or Nicolas Paredes. The fact they were served with the Notice of Petition and Petition and named as parties in the proceeding is sufficient for a warrant of eviction to be effective as against them. [*4]

A Notice of Termination may be "reused" or "recycled" to serve as the predicate of a subsequent Holdover Proceeding where the prior holdover proceeding has not been terminated at the time of the commencement of the subsequent holdover proceeding and where the tenant has not been caused any discernible prejudice ( West Bushwick NRP Associaates, L.P., v. Bushwick Cooperative Federal Credit Union, 10 Misc 3d 1078(A), 814 NYS2d 893, 2005 NY Slip Op. 52254(U)[NY City Civ. Ct. 2005]quoting, Hudson Waterfront Assocs. IV, L.P. v. MTP 59 St. LLC, 8 Misc 3d 136(A)[ App. Term 1st. Dept. 2005]. Petitioner in the within proceeding is not "recycling" the Notice of Termination, he served a new Notice of Termination while the prior proceeding was still pending but did not begin this proceeding until after the prior proceeding had been discontinued. Accordingly, there was only one proceeding pending at any time, not two as alleged by respondent. In any event, respondent has failed to allege any prejudice as a result of the Notice of Termination being served prior to the discontinuance of the prior proceeding.

22 N.Y.C.R.R. 208.42(g) allegations required under MDL§325and N.Y.C. Adm. Code 27-2097 States: " In every summary proceeding brought to recover possession of real property pursuant to section 711 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law the petitioner shall allege EITHER:

(1) that the premises are not a multiple dwelling; or (2) that the premises are a multiple dwelling and pursuant to Adm. Code 27-2097 et. Seq., there is currently effective registration statement on file with the office of code enforcement in which owner has designated a managing agent, a person over 21 years of age, to be in control of and responsible for the maintenance and operation of the dwelling....."

Failure of the petition to comply with the court rule and to allege either that the premises were not a multiple dwelling or that it is a multiple dwelling and there is a current registration statement on file, constitutes nothing more than a defect or irregularity which in no way affects the court's jurisdiction ( Midtown Properties, Inc., v. Tac-Ole Mexican Foods, Inc., 68 Misc 2d 1028, 328 NYS2d 877[NY Civ. Ct. 1972]). The legislative intention underlying the Code provision was to foster compliance with the registration requirement by precluding, during the period of noncompliance, the recovery of rents and the recovery of possession based on nonpayment of rent. It does not preclude the maintenance of a non-rent related holdover proceeding ( Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc 2d 590, 760 NYS2d 609[App. Term 2nd. Dept. 2003]). Neither a multiple dwelling registration, nor a showing that the premises are not a multiple dwelling, is an element of the holdover cause of action (Czerwinski v. Hayes, 8 Misc 3d 89, 799 NYS2d 349[App. Term 2nd. & 11th. Jud. [*5]Dists. 2005]). This conflicting designation of the premises in the petition is an amendable irregularity and would not subject the petition to dismissal ( See Baer v. Gotham Craftsman Ltd., 154 Misc 2d 490, 595 NYS2d 604[App. Term 1st. Dept. 1992]reversing, Baer v. Gotham Craftsman Ltd., 153 Misc 2d 351, 581 NYS2d 549).

In Baer the Appellate Term reversed the decision of the Civil Court which denied the pre-trial motion by the petitioner to amend the multiple dwelling designation in the petition, and granted the respondent's motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition on the grounds that " the pleading rule requires a choice which petitioners have not made." In the case at hand respondent did not move pre-trial to dismiss the petition and did not raise the conflicting designation in the petition until after petitioner had submitted the Multiple Dwelling Registration statement in evidence, without objection, and had rested on its case in chief. Under the circumstances this court finds that the irregularity was waived and was amended by the admission in evidence of the Multiple Dwelling Registration statement.

Accordingly, it is the decision and judgment of this court that petitioner is awarded a money judgment in the amount of $111,128.51 against respondent N & G Luggages, Inc., only. Petitioner is awarded a Judgment of possession against all respondents, warrant of eviction to issue forthwith, execution forthwith.

This constitutes the decision and judgment of this court.

Dated: April 17, 2007___________________________

Manuel J. Mendez

Judge Civil Court