neither the ETPA nor the ETPR requires the landlord to serve such a notice, some courts have
suggested that it is nevertheless necessary.
[fn] Crow v. 83rd
Street Associates, 68 NY2d 796, 506 N.Y.S.2d 858, 498 N.E.2d 422 (1986) ('Appellate Term
and nisi prius decisions stating that the 1983 amendment eliminates the section 60 notice
requirement should not be followed'); but see G. Warhit Real Estate, Inc. v. Krauss,
127 Misc 2d 845, 487 N.Y.S.2d 484 (Dist. Ct. 1985), order aff'd, 131 Misc 2d 429, 502
N.Y.S.2d 899 (App. Term 1985) (finding 'Golub' notice unnecessary under
ETPA)."
In Crow v. 83rd Street Associates, 68 NY2d 796, 506
NYS2d 858 (1986), the Court of Appeals declined to follow the holding of Warhit Real
Estate v. Krauss, concerning the need for a Golub notice. The Court held that a
landlord still must serve the tenant with notice of nonrenewal of a lease not more than 150 days
and not less than 120 days prior to the expiration date:
"The two notice provisions are not inconsistent. Section 41 of the Omnibus
Housing Act, in amending the New York City Rent Stabilization Law, therefore, does not effect
an implied repeal of the unrelated and different notice requirement of section 60 of the Rent
Stabilization Code (see, Matter of Board of Educ. v. Allen, 6 NY2d 127, 141-142;
McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 391). Because the landlord failed to
serve notice pursuant to section 60 of the Code, the tenant is entitled to a renewal lease by
operation of sections 50 and 54(E) of the Code (see, Elwick Ltd. v. Howard, 65 NY2d
1006; Golub v. Frank, 65 NY2d 900). Appellate Term and nisi prius decisions stating
that the 1983 amendment eliminates the section 60 notice requirement (see, e.g., Continental