Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)

Citation
J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
Parent Document
J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
Jurisdiction
New York (state)
Effective Date
1995-09-12

Full Text

1,187 chars
To permit inclusion of the asterisked language in the three-day notice and the petition would fundamentally alter the nature of the summary proceeding. The summary proceeding is intended to provide an owner with a swift and expeditious vehicle to regain possession upon the tenant’s default in the payment of rent, not two or six years later. It is not designed to permit an owner to assert a speculative two- to six-year-old monetary claim, or to grant what amounts to a trial preference over all other pending plenary contract actions. To hold otherwise would encourage routine hypothetical pleading in summary proceedings, and unfairly permit an owner to seek a possessory judgment based on any potential arrearage that may have occurred at any time within the six-year contract *180limitation period. Such a holding would effectively abrogate the sound principle that a possessory judgment cannot be sought for "stale rent”, i.e., an owner cannot forbear from bringing a summary proceeding, allowing the arrearage to mount to a level where the tenant cannot satisfy it, thereby making eviction inevitable. (See, Gramford Realty Corp. v Valentin, 71 Misc 2d 784 [Irving Younger, J.].)