After his month-to-month tenancy was terminated, East Broadway Mall started a holdover proceeding against Tin Tian Hu.
When his dismissal request was denied by the New York County Civil Court, Hu appealed to the Appellate Term, First Department.
Since the pleadings failed to identify the City as the owner of the building, and the Mall's lease with the municipality was never introduced into evidence, the AT1 thought those errors were "fatal" to the case.
(Since the parties' occupancy agreement was "subject to and subordinate to" the City's lease, the omissions in the case were seen as having deprived Hu of certain defenses, and inhibited the lower court's ability to "properly" decide the dispute.)
Hu's Mall was it?
To view a copy of the Appellate Term's decision, please use this link: East Broadway Mall, Inc. v. Tin Tian Hu