Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

111-35 75th Ave. Owners Corp. v. Hendrix, 50 Misc. 3d 17 (2015)

Citation
111-35 75th Ave. Owners Corp. v. Hendrix, 50 Misc. 3d 17 (2015)
Parent Document
111-35 75th Ave. Owners Corp. v. Hendrix, 50 Misc. 3d 17 (2015)
Jurisdiction
New York (state)
Effective Date
2015-08-12

Full Text

953 chars
In any event, assuming arguendo that landlord acquiesced in the Civil Court’s fixing of the cure remedy and in its extensions of the 10-day cure period, we find that the court properly determined, following the compliance hearing, that tenant, who had still not served a notice of petition and petition on her undertenants, had not cured the breach within the cure period as purportedly extended, and tenant’s delay in removing the undertenants could not be deemed de minimis (cf. Mansfield Owners, Inc. v Robinson, 45 Misc 3d 133[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51667[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]). Moreover, tenant failed to offer any proof at the compliance hearing establishing that she had otherwise corrected the breach within the cure period as purportedly extended by obtaining approval to sublet the apartment in accordance with the lease provision requiring consent from at least 65% of the lessees owning the then-issued shares.