Sanjurjo v Milio, 2021 NY Slip Op 50208(U) [70 Misc 3d 1224(A)]

action be served with original process if a new claim is to be made against it "); Doyle v
Happy Tumbler Wash-O-Mat, Inc., 113 Add 818, 820, 493 NYS2d 578 [2nd Dept 1985] ("It
is well settled that a defendant who is already properly in an action need not be served with
original process when a new claim is to be made against it."); Rohany v State, 144 Misc
2d 940, 942, 545 NYS2d 513 [Ct of Claims 1989]; Park Ave. Bank v Cong. & Yeshiva Ohel Yehoshea, 29 Misc 3d
446, 449, 907 NYS2d 571 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2010]).

As to the date of the mailing, respondent implies that the amended pleading must be served
by the date the original pleading was required to be served. This argument strains credulity since
CPLR § 3025 allows for service of an amended petition up to (20) days after service
of the original.[FN7]
As such, respondent's second affirmative defense is dismissed.

Respondent's third affirmative defense, which responds to petitioner's illegal eviction claim,
will be discussed infra.

Respondent's fourth affirmative defense essentially claims it is difficult for the landlord to
ascertain when the repairs will be completed because it will be difficult to obtain permits from
the Department of Buildings ("DOB") and other government entities. While it may, in fact, take
time to obtain permits, this is not a recognized defense to an order to correct. (see D'Agostino v Forty-Three E. Equities
Corp., 12 Misc 3d 486, 489-490 [Civ Ct, New York County 2006] aff'd on other
grounds, 16 Misc 3d 59 [App Term, 1st Dept 2007]; Vargas v 112 Suffolk St. Apt. Corp., 66 Misc 3d 1214[A] at *3
[Civ Ct, New York County 2020] [lack of standing, lack of jurisdiction, completed repairs, that
the conditions are not code violations, that a notice of violation is facially insufficient, that a