CAPPEL v. LONDON.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
November 24, 1908.)
Landlord and Tenant (§ 303)—Recovery of Possession—Summary Proceedings—Petition—Sufficiency.
Under Code Civ. Proc. § 2235, permitting a landlord, etc., to make application for the removal of one from real property by summary proceedings, and requiring the petition to describe petitioner’s interest therein, a petition describing petitioner’s interest as that of “landlord” was insufficient.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Landlord and Tenant, Dec. Dig. § 303.*]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.
Summary proceedings for possession of property by Peter P. Cappel against Meyer London.' From a final order for petitioner, defendant appealed.
Order reversed.
Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., and MacLEAN and SEA-BURY, JJ.
Bernard H. Sandler, for appellant.
PER CURIAM.
The petition herein was defective and the court below without jurisdiction, in that the petitioner’s interest is stated as *3being that of “landlord,” and not within the requirements of section 2235 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Engel, Heller & Co. v. Elias Brewing Co., 37 Misc. Rep. 480, 482, 75 N. Y. Supp. 1080. Objection thereto and therefor was raised before the court below, and is urged here as a ground for the reversal of the final order upon which the possession of the premises, No. 12 Bayard street, this city, was awarded in this summary proceeding. The order must therefore be reversed.
Einal order reversed, with costs to the appellant.