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/9999920/rochdale-vil-inc-v-hallerdin-grant/ ↗

Full Text

1,297 chars

Here, by offering no factual specifics as to Respondent's alleged willful [*4]misrepresentations or concealment regarding his tenancy, Petitioner's termination notice is defective, as it deprives Respondent of the ability to "prepare a legal defense" (Domen Holding Co. v Aranovich, 1 NY3d 117, 125 [2003]; see also Rochdale v Baker, 2021 NY Slip Op 32000[U] [Civ Ct, Queens Co 2021]; Singh v Ramirez, 20 Misc 3d 142[A] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists, 2d Dept 2008]). Nor does the court accept Petitioner's argument that the notice is sufficient because a claim for willful concealment is implied by virtue of the four years of missing income affidavits alleged in the notice. "Termination notices must be clear, unambiguous and unequivocal in order to serve as the catalyst which terminates a leasehold" (Lehtonen v Dellaquila, 67 Misc 3d 139[A] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2020] [internal citations and quotations omitted]; see also Hacels, LLC v TM701 Corp., 39 Misc 3d 13 [App Term, 1st Dept 2013]). As a facially insufficient predicate notice is non-amendable, this cause of action must be dismissed (see Chinatown Apartments Inc. v. Chu Cho Lam, 51 NY2d 786 [1980]; Bray Realty, LLC v Pilaj, 59 Misc 3d 130(A) [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists, 2d Dept 2018]).

Other Sections in This Document (21)

Full Text