
    COHEN et al. v. BROSSEVITCH.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    December 31, 1900.)
    Dispossession of Tenant—Pleading—Sufficiency.
    In a summary proceeding to remove a tenant, a petition by one alleging his agency for “H. C. and A. C. landlord of the following premises,” is insufficient, as it is not an allegation that such parties were the landlords of the premises.
    Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Fourth district.
    Action by Harris Cohen and another against Harris Brossevitch. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
    Reversed.
    Argued before TRUAX, P. J., and SCOTT and DUGRO, JJ.
    L. B. Boudin, for appellant.
    J. A. Kent, for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

This is a summary proceeding to remove a tenant. The proceeding should have been dismissed on the ground that the petition on which the precept was issued did not state that Harris Cohen and Abraham Cohen were the landlords’ of the premises from which it was sought to dispossess the tenant. The petition was made by one Harris Budner, who "respectfully says that .he is the agent for Harris Cohen and Abraham Cohen, landlord of the following premises.” This is not an allegation that Harris Cohen and Abraham Cohen were the landlords of the premises. In the case of Cunningham v. Goelet, 4 Denio, 71, which was also a summary proceeding, the petition was as follows: "City and County of New York—ss.: Patrick Henry, agent for Peter Goelet, being duly sworn, doth depose and say.” It was there held that the petition was defective, and that the court acquired no jurisdiction by reason of it. See, also, Potter v. Society, 23 Misc. Rep. 671, 52 N. Y. Supp. 294, and Ross v. Same, 23 Misc. Rep. 683, 52 N. Y. Supp. 303.

The final order is reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.  