Eviction Proceeding Dismissed Due to Improper Nonrenewal Notice

Landlord sued to evict unregulated tenants. The court dismissed the case because landlord failed to serve tenants with a valid, statutorily required 90-day notice before starting the case. Before HSTPA was enacted on June 14, 2019, landlord could terminate a month-to-month tenancy under RPL Section 232-b by notifying tenant at least one month before the expiration of the term that it elected to terminate. As part of HSTPA, the legislature added RPL Section 266-c, which pertains to nonrenewal and termination notices. In this case, tenants had lived in the apartment as month-to-month tenants for more than two years. This entitled them to a 90-day nonrenewal notice before landlord sought eviction. Landlord argued that the invalid termination notice was saved by a provision in RPL Section 226-c(1)(a) stating that, "If the landlord fails to provide timely notice, the occupant's lawful tenancy shall continue under the existing terms of the tenancy from the date on which the landlord gave actual written notice until the notice period has expired[.]" But the court knew of no case law interpreting this provision, and found the issue in this case related not to the timeliness of the termination notice but to its durational inadequacy. Landlord's termination notice improperly directed the tenants to vacate the apartment on less than 90 days' notice. The case therefore was dismissed

Mohegan Vista Props. LP v Mazo: Case No. 22050240, 2022 NY Slip Op 22224 (Justice Ct. Ossining; 7/1/22; Gasbarro, J)