No Notice to Cure Needed Before Terminating for Profiteering

LVT Number: #30837

Landlord sued to evict rent-stabilized tenant for using the apartment as a hotel for short-term rentals under Airbnb. At the same time, landlord sued tenant in State Supreme Court, seeking a preliminary injunction to stop tenant from continuing the short-term rentals because they created a nuisance and exposed landlord to civil and criminal penalties under the law. The court granted the preliminary bar to tenant's continued Airbnb rentals.

Landlord sued to evict rent-stabilized tenant for using the apartment as a hotel for short-term rentals under Airbnb. At the same time, landlord sued tenant in State Supreme Court, seeking a preliminary injunction to stop tenant from continuing the short-term rentals because they created a nuisance and exposed landlord to civil and criminal penalties under the law. The court granted the preliminary bar to tenant's continued Airbnb rentals.

Tenant then asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the case. He claimed that landlord failed to send him a notice to cure before starting the court case, and that the Supreme Court wasn't the proper court to address landlord's claims.

The court ruled against tenant. A notice to cure wasn't required since short-term rentals to transient occupants at illegal rents in the nature of a sublet constituted profiteering and commercialization of the premises and was an incurable violation. The housing court had made the same ruling in landlord's eviction case against tenant. And the Supreme Court did have jurisdiction to rule on landlord's claims.

East 17th LLC v. Kacimi: Index No. 155103/2019, 2020 NY Slip Op 31343(U)(Sup. Ct. NY; 5/12/20; Freed, J)