time specified for the furnishing of such notice to him, shall give to the tenant written notice,
served personally or by registered or certified mail, calling the attention of the tenant to the
existence of such provision in the lease.[FN10]
In upholding the
statutory predecessor of this provision, the Court of Appeals noted that the law [*4]"was enacted solely for the protection of the tenant."[FN11] Another court found that "the
automatic renewal clause in leases was indubitably a trap for the unwary or forgetful
tenant."[FN12] The Third
Department has found that a landlord's failure to provide the required written reminder precludes
recovery from the original tenant even when the tenant subsequently sub-let the
premises.[FN13] Lastly,
the Fourth Department has held that "[c]ovenants for renewal are to be construed most favorably
to the lessee."[FN14]In
this case, there is no proof that the landlord provided the tenant with the required written
reminder of the lease's automatic renewal. His inaction renders the automatic renewal clause in
this case unenforceable as against the public policy of this state.[FN15]
Had the landlord sent such a notice to the tenant between September 1st and 15th, the
paragraph would have been valid and the tenant would have been required to provide his notice
to vacate before October 1st in order to avoid having to pay an additional thirty days rent. Also,
had the tenant still been in the premises on November 1st, the landlord could have proceeded
against him as a hold-over.[FN16]
This decision, however, does not mean that the tenant is to be commended for his
insensitivity to the landlord's needs in this case. Rochester, like so many communities across this