allowing for the termination of a residential tenancy on
grounds of nonpayment would be against public policy to the
extent it did not allow a cure (61 E. 72nd St. Corp. v Zimberg,
161 AD2d 542, 542 [1st Dept 1990]; Park Summit Realty Corp.
v Frank, 107 Misc 2d 318, 323-324 [App Term, 1st Dept 1980]).
As alluded to in respondent’s papers (see Phillips affirmation,
NYSCEF Doc No. 11 ¶¶ 36-37), the public policy consideration
militating in favor of a cure option is New York’s consistent
endorsement of rent withholding as a valid means of motivat-
ing a landlord to comply with health and safety standards (see
Real Property Law § 235-b; Multiple Dwelling Law § 302-a;
RPAPL 770 et seq.; Social Services Law § 143-b; Ansonia Assoc.
v Ansonia Residents’ Assn., 78 AD2d 211, 220 [1st Dept 1980];
Whitby Operating Corp. v Schleissner, 117 Misc 2d 794, 800
[Sup Ct, NY County 1982]). The possibility of an incurable
lease termination for tenants who availed themselves of these
remedies would undoubtedly have a chilling effect, to the detri-
ment of the condition of the housing stock and the health and
safety of the renting populace.
Applying the Weiss-Newell standard to the notice of nonre-
newal yields the conclusion that the notice was unreasonable
under the circumstances. While it recited the statutory provi-
sion upon which the termination was based, it failed to clearly
inform respondent of the period for which rent was due or the
approximate sum owed. Rent demands that fail to provide such
basic notice of alleged rent arrears are consistently rejected by
the courts (see e.g. EOM 106-15 217th Corp. v Severine, 62
Misc 3d 141[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50068[U] [App Term, 2d Dept,
2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019] [rent demand misstated pe-