Termination Notice Vague and Confusing

Landlord sued to evict rent-stabilized tenant for nuisance. Tenant claimed that landlord didn't send a notice to cure before sending a termination notice. Landlord claimed a notice to cure wasn't needed because the eviction was based on nuisance. But landlord's termination notice stated the eviction was sought both for tenant nuisance and for breach of a substantial tenancy obligation. A notice to cure is required for the tenancy violation claim. The court ruled for tenant. While the two grounds weren't necessarily inconsistent, landlord's notice was vague and confusing, and in violation of both Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law 741(4) and Rent Stabilization Code Section 2524.2(b). The notice didn't clearly set forth whether one or more grounds were alleged. And, since tenant's conduct didn't relate to any imminent, potentially life-threatening conduct, the petition was dismissed.

Realty Development Co. v. Rochester: NYLJ, p. 29, col. 4 (6/7/95) (Civ. Ct. Kings; Baynes, J)