Landlord's Termination Notice Was Too Vague

October 31, 2009

LVT Number: #22255

Landlord sued to evict rent-controlled tenant for nonprimary residence. The court dismissed the case because landlord's termination notice wasn't specific enough. Landlord appealed and lost. The notice stated broadly that tenant didn't maintain an ongoing, substantial, physical nexus with the apartment for actual living purposes, that tenant failed to spend more than 183 days out of the prior year at the apartment, and that no building employees had seen tenant at the building for more than a year.

Landlord sued to evict rent-controlled tenant for nonprimary residence. The court dismissed the case because landlord's termination notice wasn't specific enough. Landlord appealed and lost. The notice stated broadly that tenant didn't maintain an ongoing, substantial, physical nexus with the apartment for actual living purposes, that tenant failed to spend more than 183 days out of the prior year at the apartment, and that no building employees had seen tenant at the building for more than a year. The notice didn't identify the employees and didn't state an alternate address where landlord believed tenant primarily resided. Although an alternate address isn't absolutely required in the notice, the notice was otherwise too generic and conclusory. The rent control regulations require a termination notice to state the facts upon which landlord's claim is based.

London Terrace Gardens, LP v. Heller: NYLJ, 10/29/09, p. 34, col. 5 (App. T. 1 Dept.; McKeon, PJ, Shulman, Hunter, JJ)

Topics

More like this