No Notice to Cure Needed Before Terminating for Profiteering

Landlord sued to evict rent-stabilized tenant for illegal subletting and profiteering. Landlord claimed that tenant sublet his apartment for about 10 years and charged the subtenant more than the rent permitted under the Rent Stabilization Code. When it got to court, landlord claimed that tenant now had a second subtenant and hadn't requested landlord's consent for either sublet. Tenant asked the court to dismiss the case.

The court ruled for tenant in part. The Rent Stabilization Code (RSC) doesn't permit tenant to sublet for more than two years out of a four-year period. Landlord claimed that tenant had sublet more than two years. So landlord was required to send a notice to cure before making that claim. But the portion of landlord's case claiming that tenant had charged subtenant more than the legal rent, and therefore was profiteering, involved claims of defrauding both the landlord and the subtenant. Violations of RSC Section 2525.6(b) weren't capable of being cured. So landlord wasn't required to serve a notice to cure before terminating the tenancy for this reason. Tenant also claimed that landlord's termination notice was insufficient, but landlord's termination notice clearly stated sufficient facts to support its claims. The case was adjourned by the court for trial. 

Stahl Assoc. LLC v. Alexandersson: Index No. L&T 80665/18, 2020 NY Slip Op 50251(U) (Civ. Ct. NY; 2/24/20; Ortiz, J)