Termination Notice Didn't Set Grounds for Termination Landlord Claimed in Court

January 28, 2024

LVT Number: #33054

Landlord sued to evict tenant after sending a 90-day termination notice. Landlord alleged that the apartment was unregulated because it was a cooperative unit and the lease between the parties had expired. Landlord was the holder of unsold shares for the apartment. And, although not stated in its court papers, in court the parties agreed that tenant was a non-purchasing tenant protected from eviction under the Martin Act.

Landlord sued to evict tenant after sending a 90-day termination notice. Landlord alleged that the apartment was unregulated because it was a cooperative unit and the lease between the parties had expired. Landlord was the holder of unsold shares for the apartment. And, although not stated in its court papers, in court the parties agreed that tenant was a non-purchasing tenant protected from eviction under the Martin Act. But landlord claimed for the first time, in a motion for summary judgment, that tenant failed to sign a renewal lease and that landlord therefore was entitled to possession.

The court ruled against landlord based on defects in the termination notice. There is no regulatory provision governing termination notices for unregulated tenancies or for tenancies covered by the Martin Act. However, that didn't mean that the termination notice was sufficient if it failed to allege the facts on which termination was based. A termination notice must include facts to demonstrate that termination is justified by the lease, laws, or regulations. Since tenant's failure to sign a lease renewal is curable, the failure to include any facts setting forth the basis for termination in the notice is a fatal defect that can't be cured. 

State Realty, LLC v. Cotto: Index No. 328968/2022; NYLJ No. 1703070656 (Civ. Ct. Kings; 12/18/23; Weisberg, J)

Topics

More like this