Termination Notice Didn't Sufficiently Explain How Tenant Failed to Cure Violation

Landlord sued to evict rent-stabilized tenant for breaching a substantial obligation of her tenancy. Landlord had spelled out in a notice to cure that tenant had installed a "built in" partition in the form of a Sheetrock wall from floor to ceiling, thereby creating an interior room in a portion of her apartment. This was done without landlord's prior consent and in violation of HPD's building code. The cure notice advised tenant to cure a violation issued by HPD on or before Feb. 11, 2020. Landlord later issued a termination notice on Feb. 12, 2020, stating that tenant hadn't cured the violation. Landlord then commenced the eviction proceeding in March 2020 but, due to pandemic delays, it first appeared on the court calendar in September 2021 after landlord sought a default judgment against tenant.

Tenant subsequently appeared and was represented by an attorney. Among other things, she claimed that the building super had appeared in her apartment on Feb. 11, 2020, and removed the partition. HPD later inspected the apartment and no violation had been placed for the partition. Tenant also argued that landlord's termination notice was defective because it failed to set forth sufficient facts.

The court ruled for tenant and dismissed the case. Landlord's termination notice failed to state sufficient facts to establish grounds for eviction. The termination notice was dated one day after the cure period ended and, although it stated that tenant didn't cure, it didn't allege how landlord discovered in one day how tenant didn't cure the claimed lease violation. Tenant also claimed the building super had helped her cure the violation on Feb. 11. So, the termination notice was defective and the case was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.

2186 Realty NY LLC v. Martinez: L&T Index No. 12396/20, 2022 NY Slip Op 31054(U)(Civ. Ct. NY; 4/25/22; Jennings, J)