In United East LLC v. Churi, 24 Misc. 3d 80, 2009 NY Slip Op 29268, the Appellate Term held that although the statement in the bill of particulars that the tenants had not yet "permanently vacated" the premises, and the succession rights defense interposed in the answer by the undertenant at the same time were inconsistent. "inconsistent defenses may be pleaded in the alternative" . The court stated that to the extent the statement in the bill of particulars can be viewed as an informal judicial admission, "it does not serve as a conclusive bar to the undertenants facially viable succession claim, since an informal judicial admission is merely some evidence of the fact or facts 'admitted,' and may be explained at trial." Id. As a result, the Court concluded that "at this pleading stage, the undertenant's succession claim embodied in the second affirmative defense should not have been summarily dismissed".