Landlord's Second Case Didn't Rely on Any New Facts

Landlord sued to evict rent-stabilized tenant for nonprimary residence. Landlord and tenant settled the case, which was discontinued "with prejudice." Landlord later sued to evict tenant for nonprimary residence a second time. Tenant asked the court to dismiss the case without a trial. The court ruled for tenant. Although landlord was permitted to bring the new action, the nonrenewal notice didn't contain new facts different from those referred to in the prior settlement agreement, and was vague and ambiguous. Although the second nonrenewal notice stated that building staff saw tenant at the building once a month for less than a week each time, landlord's doorman stated that he worked from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. and it was possible that tenant went to and from the building before and after these times.

Second 82nd Corp. v. Veiders: 053945/10, NYLJ 1202471115597 (Civ. Ct. NY; Halprin, J; 8/12/10)