approximately February, March or April 2017 before a new family moved in. The photographs
show a vacant apartment with freshly painted walls; new cabinets, floor tiles and counters in the
kitchen; new tiles, grout and bathtub in the bathroom; smooth and varnished wood floors in the
bedrooms and/or living room; one window with a fire escape gate, one window with a
child-safety gate and one window with a large piece of plywood covering approximately the
bottom two-thirds.
On cross-examination when asked about the window covered with plywood the super
explained that the plywood was placed there to block a light that was bothering a neighbor. The
only problem with that window had been a balance that needed to be repaired. The super testified
that he visited the relocation apartment around seven times during that period but could not recall
any of the dates or when the work was completed. After the repairs were completed he returned
to the apartment to give the keys to the new tenant, who "is still there with no complaints."
DISCUSSION
As an initial matter, Petitioner's request to conform the pleadings to the proof adduced at trial
is granted and Respondent's request for dismissal of the proceeding because of the erroneous
statement in the Petition that the subject premises are Rent Stabilized is denied. Respondent
cannot assert surprise or prejudice due to this erroneous statement as she herself asserted in her
Verified Amended Answer dated June 23, 2017 that her apartment was subject to HUD
regulations.
A party may move for leave to amend its pleadings at any time, even after trial. CPLR Rule
3025(b). The court may permit pleadings to be amended before or after judgment to conform