Landlord's Predicate Notices in Illegal Sublet Case Were Fatally Defective

January 25, 2021

LVT Number: #31186

Landlord sued to evict rent-stabilized tenant for violating substantial obligations of his tenancy. Landlord claimed that tenant illegally sublet his apartment. Tenant asked the court to dismiss the case. He claimed that landlord's 10-day notice to cure and termination notice were defective. The court agreed and ruled for tenant. The court noted that the termination notice was almost identical to the cure notice, but that both were unreasonable, too generic, and didn't contain specific factual allegations to support conclusory statements that tenant was illegally subletting.

Landlord sued to evict rent-stabilized tenant for violating substantial obligations of his tenancy. Landlord claimed that tenant illegally sublet his apartment. Tenant asked the court to dismiss the case. He claimed that landlord's 10-day notice to cure and termination notice were defective. The court agreed and ruled for tenant. The court noted that the termination notice was almost identical to the cure notice, but that both were unreasonable, too generic, and didn't contain specific factual allegations to support conclusory statements that tenant was illegally subletting. The notices didn't state that tenant hadn't been seen at the building or that tenant wasn't living in the apartment. The termination notice also didn't state that the lease violation hadn't been cured. The court dismissed the case.

340 S. Third St. HDFC v. Hernandez: Index No. 84603-19, NYLJ No. 1608237745 (Civ. Ct. Kings; 12/10/20; Fitzpatrick, J)

Topics

More like this