Landlord Didn't Have to Name Tenant's Son as Party in Court Papers

Landlord sued to evict rent-stabilized tenant for nuisance, claiming that tenants or members of tenant's family verbally harassed other building tenants on a continuing and ongoing basis. Tenant's son asked the court to dismiss the case because he wasn't specifically named as a party to the proceeding. Landlord instead named tenant "John Doe" and "Jane Doe." Tenant's son claimed that landlord should have known and used his name on court papers. Tenant also claimed that the court petition wasn't properly delivered to him and that a traverse hearing therefore was needed.

The court ruled against tenant, who appealed and won in part. Landlord wasn't required to use a respondent's name if it was unknown. Tenant claimed that his son was listed on his SCRIE application, but this wasn't information landlord had access to. And tenant's son wasn't a necessary party to the eviction proceeding against tenant. He wouldn't have succession rights in any event in this case, since tenant lived in the apartment when the case was commenced. However, a traverse hearing was warranted since tenant raised valid questions about whether the court papers were served properly. The case was sent back to the housing court.

Netherland Properties LLC v. Karalesis: 63 Misc.3d 1235(A), 2019 NY Slip Op 50896(U) (Civ. Ct. Bronx; 6/5/19; Weissman, J)