Public Housing Tenant Doesn't Get Chance to Cure

March 1, 1999

LVT Number: 13027

Landlord NYCHA sued to evict month-to-month tenant after making an administrative ruling that tenant couldn't get continued occupancy. Tenant claimed that landlord should have sent him a notice to cure before terminating his tenancy and that the case should be dismissed without a trial. The court ruled for tenant, and landlord appealed. The appeals court ruled for landlord. Landlord didn't claim that tenant breached a lease provision. If that was the case, tenant should have been given a chance to correct the violation.

Landlord NYCHA sued to evict month-to-month tenant after making an administrative ruling that tenant couldn't get continued occupancy. Tenant claimed that landlord should have sent him a notice to cure before terminating his tenancy and that the case should be dismissed without a trial. The court ruled for tenant, and landlord appealed. The appeals court ruled for landlord. Landlord didn't claim that tenant breached a lease provision. If that was the case, tenant should have been given a chance to correct the violation. NYCHA had found that tenant was a month-to-month tenant and that he no longer had the right to remain in the apartment. These were the only issues that could be examined by the court. Tenant had no right to cure.

NYCHA v. Williams: NYLJ, p. 30, col. 1 (2/16/99) (App. T. 2 Dept.; Scholnick, JP, Chetta, Patterson, JJ)

Topics

More like this