Notice to Cure Specified Unauthorized Alterations Tenant Made

January 1, 2003

LVT Number: 16300

(Decision submitted by David M. Berger of the Brooklyn law firm of Tenenbaum Dunbar Saltiel & Berger LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord sued to evict tenant for making unauthorized apartment alterations, in violation of his lease. Tenant asked the court to dismiss the case, claiming that landlord's notice to cure wasn't specific enough. The cure notice didn't state what the ''substantial alterations'' were or which lease obligation was violated. The court ruled against tenant. Tenant asked landlord for more specifics in response to landlord's petition.

(Decision submitted by David M. Berger of the Brooklyn law firm of Tenenbaum Dunbar Saltiel & Berger LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord sued to evict tenant for making unauthorized apartment alterations, in violation of his lease. Tenant asked the court to dismiss the case, claiming that landlord's notice to cure wasn't specific enough. The cure notice didn't state what the ''substantial alterations'' were or which lease obligation was violated. The court ruled against tenant. Tenant asked landlord for more specifics in response to landlord's petition. Landlord provided them at that point. Landlord described tenant's complete gutting of the apartment. And tenant knew that his lease barred unauthorized alterations.

Lido Realty LLC v. Fuentes: L&T Index No. 89826/02 (Civ. Ct. NY 12/5/02; Sikowitz, J) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

89826-02.pdf219.21 KB

Topics

More like this