Misleading Termination Notice

March 1, 1997

LVT Number: 11281

Landlord sued to evict tenant. Tenant claimed that landlord's termination notice was defective. The court ruled for tenant and dismissed the case. Landlord's termination notice was unclear and misleading because it stated three different reasons that the tenancy was being terminated---because tenant didn't respond to a notice to cure, because landlord sought the apartment for personal use and occupancy, and because the apartment was being illegally sublet. In addition, there was no proof that landlord sent any notice to cure.

Landlord sued to evict tenant. Tenant claimed that landlord's termination notice was defective. The court ruled for tenant and dismissed the case. Landlord's termination notice was unclear and misleading because it stated three different reasons that the tenancy was being terminated---because tenant didn't respond to a notice to cure, because landlord sought the apartment for personal use and occupancy, and because the apartment was being illegally sublet. In addition, there was no proof that landlord sent any notice to cure. And landlord sent the termination notice after tenant's lease expired.

Castillo v. Rodriguez: NYLJ, p. 33 col. 4 (2/5/97) (Civ. Ct. Kings; Callender, J)

Topics

More like this