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/9999992/rochdale-vil-inc-v-hallerdin-grant/ ↗

Full Text

1,398 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