Rochdale Vil., Inc. v. Hallerdin-Grant, 2024 NY Slip Op 24192 (2024)

Citation: Rochdale Vil., Inc. v. Hallerdin-Grant, 2024 NY Slip Op 24192 (2024)
Parent Document: Rochdale Vil., Inc. v. Hallerdin-Grant, 2024 NY Slip Op 24192 (2024)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2024-07-10
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10004254/rochdale-vil-inc-v-hallerdin-grant/ ↗

Full Text

1,409 chars

Where a landlord is obligated to serve a notice to cure, whether by requirement of statute or lease, the notice must be more than a "mere formality" (Sudimac v Beck, 63 Misc 3d 1208[A] [Civ Ct, Queens Co 2019]). The notice must provide a fact-specific description of the offending conduct and cite to the relevant lease provision violated, so as to afford the tenant the opportunity to take the necessary "remedial action 
[ . . . ] required by the lease" to avoid a forfeiture (Chinatown Apartments Inc. v. Chu Cho Lam, 51 NY2d 786 [1980]; see also 1346 Park Place [*3]HDFC v Wright, 52 Misc 3d 18 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]; 240 W. 37th LLC v. BOA Fashion, Inc, 24 Misc 3d 145[A] [App Term, 1st Dept 2009]; ShopRite Supermarkets, Inc. v. Yonkers Plaza Shopping, LLC, 29 AD3d 564 [2d Dept 2006]; Filmtrucks, Inc. v. Express Indus. & Term. Corp., 127 AD2d 509 [1st Dept 1987]). In addition, if a landlord determines that the default was not cured during the cure period, it must recite in the termination notice non-conclusory additional facts evidencing an ongoing breach (see Tomfol Owner Corp. v Hernandez, 201 AD3d 453 [1st Dept 2022]; 31-67 Astoria Corp. v. Landaira, 54 Misc 3d 131[A] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]; Rochdale Vil., Inc. v Stone, 66 Misc 3d 737 [Civ Ct, Queens Co 2019]; Hew-Burg Realty v. Mocerino, 163 Misc 2d 639 [Civ Ct, Kings Co 1994]).

Other Sections in This Document (22)

Full Text