The Court finds that the petitioner cannot rely upon the theory of a "law office failure" to
excuse the filing of more than one petition seeking overlapping rents. The concept of "law office
failure" is generally invoked to address an unintentional default that is explained by a clerical
error or a transposition of a number. See. CPLR § 2005 Upon an application satisfying
the requirements of subdivision (d) of section 3012 or subdivision (a) of rule 5015, the court
[*3]shall not, as a matter of law, be precluded from exercising its
discretion in the interest of justice to excuse delay or default resulting from law office
failure. Petitioner cannot rely upon "law office failure" to explain commencing a second
non-payment petition several months after obtaining a judgment and immediately after a warrant
of eviction has issued
The issue of overlapping rent was addressed by this Court on numerous occasions. See,
NYCHA v. Various Tenants, 60 Misc 3d 1210(A) (Civil Court, Bx Co 2018.) Other courts
have also addressed the issue of multiple cases seeking overlapping rents.[FN1]
Despite previous hearings regarding petitions seeking overlapping rents[FN2], it seems that there are no
effective steps in place to prevent the filing of multiple non-payment cases seeking the same
rents. Petitioner does not have an explanation nor plan to ensure that respondents are not placed
at risk of unlawful eviction when numerous cases are filed seeking overlapping rents.
The cases seeking overlapping rents lack a reasonable inquiry. (See, Rules of the Chief
Administrator Part 130). 22 NYCRR 130-1.1a(b) states: By signing a paper, an attorney or party
certifies that, to the best of that person's knowledge, information and belief, formed after an