Landlord's Cure and Termination Notices Too Vague

Landlord sued to evict tenant for violating substantial obligations of his month-to-month tenancy by chronic nonpayment of rent and by failing to provide access for repairs in May 2013. Tenant was in jail from 2010 to 2014 and then resumed occupancy. The court had dismissed a prior eviction proceeding based on unauthorized subletting after tenant represented that the apartment occupant was his fiancee. That case was dismissed, and at that time, the occupant agreed to provide access for repairs. The court ruled against landlord and dismissed the new case. Landlord's notice to cure the nonpayment failed to break down the rent arrears sought and no specific sum was named. That notice therefore was too vague. Landlord's notices also were unclear as to whether the fiancee was deemed an occupant or a co-tenant. There was no ruling in the prior case that required the fiancee to give access. Landlord also failed to show that it was forced to start any recent prior nonpayment proceedings against tenant. The most recent nonpayment proceeding cited by landlord was eight years earlier. 

238 West 112th Street HDFC v. Ringer: 44 Misc.3d 1218(A), 2014 NY Slip Op 51181(U) (Civ. Ct. NY; 8/6/14; Kraus, J)