3515 Eastchester Rd., LLC v. Soto, 2025 NY Slip Op 25209 (2025)

Citation: 3515 Eastchester Rd., LLC v. Soto, 2025 NY Slip Op 25209 (2025)
Parent Document: 3515 Eastchester Rd., LLC v. Soto, 2025 NY Slip Op 25209 (2025)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2025-09-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10675509/3515-eastchester-rd-llc-v-soto/ ↗

Full Text

1,378 chars

Petitioner now acknowledges that the GCEL applies to this tenancy, and that, under the GCEL, "No landlord shall, by action to evict or to recover possession remove any tenant from housing accommodations covered by [§ 214] of this article except for good cause as defined in [§ 216] of this article." RPL § 215. As noted recently by Housing Court Judge Meyers, "Because this statutory provision requires good cause for the act of non-renewal itself, § 226-c notices for units covered under GCEL must include factual allegations sufficient to satisfy the Hughes reasonableness standard." RP Wimbledon Owner, LLC v Chisholm (2025 NY Slip Op 25071, ¶ 2, 231 NYS3d 372, 376 [Civ Ct NY Co 2025]). Here, neither the RPL §§ 226-c and 232-a termination notice nor the original RPL § 231-c Notice identify what Petitioner now asserts to be the reason for its nonrenewal of Respondent's lease and the basis of this proceeding: alleged nuisance behavior and failure to provide the landlord reasonable access to the apartment. It is only the proposed amended RPL § 231-c Notice that raises these claims. However, the RPL § 231-c Notice is non-amendable and fails to meet "the appropriate standard for assessment of the adequacy of notice [which] is one of reasonableness in view of all attendant circumstances." Hughes v Lenox Hill Hosp (226 AD2d 4, 17, 651 NYS2d 418, 427 [1st Dep't 1996]).

Other Sections in This Document (50)

Full Text