St. James Court, L. L. C. v. Booker, 176 Misc. 2d 693 (1998)
- Citation
- St. James Court, L. L. C. v. Booker, 176 Misc. 2d 693 (1998)
- Parent Document
- St. James Court, L. L. C. v. Booker, 176 Misc. 2d 693 (1998)
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Effective Date
- 1998-02-24
Other Sections in This Document (10)
- St. James Court, L. L. C. v. Booker, 176 Misc. 2d 693 (1998)
- St. James Court, L. L. C. v. Booker, 176 Misc. 2d 693 (1998)
- St. James Court, L. L. C. v. Booker, 176 Misc. 2d 693 (1998)
- St. James Court, L. L. C. v. Booker, 176 Misc. 2d 693 (1998)
- St. James Court, L. L. C. v. Booker, 176 Misc. 2d 693 (1998)
- St. James Court, L. L. C. v. Booker, 176 Misc. 2d 693 (1998)
- St. James Court, L. L. C. v. Booker, 176 Misc. 2d 693 (1998)
- St. James Court, L. L. C. v. Booker, 176 Misc. 2d 693 (1998)
- St. James Court, L. L. C. v. Booker, 176 Misc. 2d 693 (1998)
- St. James Court, L. L. C. v. Booker, 176 Misc. 2d 693 (1998)
Full Text
526 charsAfter reviewing the rent demand sent to respondent, the court rules that the predicated rent demand is not in accordance with RPAPL 711 (2). The petitioner indicated a lump-sum amount for the period February 1996 through November 1996. The court finds that this type of pleading fails to apprise the respondent of the correct amount due for each month. The court also finds that the statements in the rent demand are “vague and misleading” and give the respondent no indication as to how the petitioner arrived at his figures.