Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of this motion: Papers Numbered Order to show Cause/ Notice of Motion and Affidavits /Affirmations annexed 1 Answering Affidavits/ Affirmations 2 Reply Affidavits/ Affirmations 3 Memoranda of Law Other Decision / Order This action having appeared on the calendar for defendant’s motion to dismiss and for trial, the Court heard oral argument from the parties, held the motion in abeyance, and proceeded to trial. After considering the parties’ papers and argument, defendant’s motion to dismiss this small claims action for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) and (8) is denied for the reasons set forth below, and the Court will rule on the trial separately. At the outset, the Court notes the strong disfavor for pre-trial motions to dismiss small claims actions, as “[t]he informality and convenience of small claims practice is necessarily frustrated by requiring pro se litigants to respond to formal motion practice under the CPLR prior to the hearing of their case.” Polanco v. City of New York, 81 Misc. 3d 138(A), *1 (App. Term, 1st Dept. 2023), quoting, Friedman v. Seward Park Hous. Corp., 167 Misc. 2d 57, 58 (App. Term, 1st Dept. 1995). Exceptions exist for clear issues of law however, and “[d]efendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is such a motion that may be considered.” See, Ivanov v. O’Connor, 84 Misc. 3d 1202(A), *2 (Civ. Ct., New York Co. Sept. 28, 2024). As defendant seeks dismissal for lack of both personal and subject matter jurisdiction, the Court addresses those objections in turn. Small Claims Court Jurisdiction Small claims cases “are heard in dedicated parts of four of New York’s limited jurisdiction trial courts: the New York City Civil Court, the District Courts of Long Island, the City Courts elsewhere in the State, and the Town and Village Courts, also known as Justice Courts,” which are governed by the New York City Civil Court Act (CCA), the Uniform District Court Act (UDCA), the Uniform City Court Act (UCCA), and the Uniform Justice Court Act (UJCA), respectively. See, Gerald Lebovits et al., Small Claims Manual (6th ed. 2022), at 1, 7. In each different local court act, service (personal jurisdiction) issues are addressed in their respective sections 1803, while subject matter jurisdiction is defined by the local court’s respective section 1801. Claimant Has Established Personal Jurisdiction Over Defendant As to personal jurisdiction, the Court notes that personal jurisdiction in small claims is derived from the simplified service procedures outlined in CCA §1803(a) rather than CPLR Art. 3. See, Sanchez v. El Flaco Parking Lot, Index No. SC-615-23/BX, 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 27120, *3 (Civ. Ct., Bronx Co. Dec. 20, 2023) (collecting authorities). CCA §1803(a) states in pertinent part that a small claims action may be commenced by sending notice of “such claim by ordinary first class mail and certified mail with return receipt requested to the party complained against (1) at his residence, if he resides within the city of New York, and his residence is known to the claimant, (2) at his office or place of regular employment within the city of New York if he does not reside therein or his residence within the city of New York is not known to the claimant, or (3) where claimant is or was a tenant or lessee of real property owned by the defendant and the claim relates to such tenancy or lease and the notice of claim cannot be sent under paragraph one or two of this subdivision, at any place in the state where plaintiff may mail or otherwise deliver rent.” (italics added). There is no dispute in the record that defendant does not reside or maintain an office within the City of New York and thus, service pursuant to subsections (1) and (2) were not available. On the other hand, there is also no dispute that “claimant is or was a tenant or lessee of real property owned by the defendant and the claim relates to such tenancy or lease.” Further, defendant’s address in Fleetwood, NY to which the statement of claim was directed — which the Court notes is the same business address defendant lists in filing this motion — is a “place in the state where plaintiff may mail or otherwise deliver rent,” pursuant to CCA §1803(a). Service to such an address is undisputably permissible where, as here, defendant himself affirmatively stated to the Court (in seeking an adjournment) that he neither lives in nor maintains an office within the confines of the City of New York. (Aff. of Unavailability dated Jan. 5, 2024, 3). As service of the small claims notice is presumed to have been completed 21 days after mailing by the clerk and, absent other evidence that service was not completed (which has not been shown), the Court has personal jurisdiction over defendant pursuant to CCA §1803(a). See, Sheikh v. Bohtis, 68 Misc. 3d 1223(A), *4-5 (Civ. Cit., Kings Co. 2020) (discussing small claims service by mail in denying motion to vacate default). Accordingly, the Court denies the branch of defendant’s motion challenging personal jurisdiction. Claimant Has Established Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Defendant Turning to subject matter jurisdiction, the question is a bit more complicated, although the result is the same. CCA §1801 provides for subject matter jurisdiction over “small claims,” brought before the Court. Small claims are defined to include any action commenced by an aggrieved party “where claimant is a tenant or lessee of real property owned by the defendant and the claim relates to such tenancy or lease, and such real property is situated within the city of New York.” Notably, unlike in CCA §1803, CCA §1801 omits the words “or was.” It is upon that omission that defendant bases his lack-of-subject-matter-jurisdiction defense as the parties do not dispute that claimant has vacated the premises at issue and thus “was,” not “is,” a tenant. (Aff. of Unavailability, 4; Aff. in Supp., 6; and Aff. in Reply, 9). On its face, therefore, CCA §1801 would appear not to confer jurisdiction over this action, as the parties do not dispute that claimant has vacated the premises at issue. (Aff. in Opp.,
