Since there is no case squarely on point, that is, where the tenant has objected to the manner of service of a predicate notice, the court concludes that the dicta in the case law, in conjunction with the rules of statutory construction, require a finding that the lease provisions concerning defaults and notices govern. There are numerous cases that discuss predicate notices, where the service thereof is tangentially mentioned. In TSS-Seedman’s, Inc. v Elota Realty Co. (72 NY2d 1024, 1027 [1988]), the Court of Appeals, in dicta, says “[s]ince the [termination] notices were sent at a later time [after the landlord accepted the rent] when there were no outstanding rental defaults to which the notices could apply, they were ineffective.” (Emphasis supplied.) In Siegel v Kentucky Fried Chicken (67 NY2d 792 [1986], affg 108 AD2d 218 [2d Dept]), the Court upheld the dismissal of a petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where the predicate notices were signed by the landlord’s attorney and not the landlord. The notices were mailed in accordance with the lease, and there is no discussion about any insufficiency in that regard. In Lana Estates (supra, at 329), a case where it was unclear if the landlord was bringing a holdover or a nonpayment proceeding, the court indicated that if it was a holdover, the notices required by the lease must have been served. In Lerner v Johnson (167 AD2d 372, 374 [2d Dept 1990]), also a case of default in obtaining insurance under *1034a commercial lease, the landlord sent-two letters of termination, and since “[n] either of the landlords’ letters specified a date of termination” they were found to be invalid. In Grabino v Howard Stores Corp. (110 Misc 2d 591, 594, supra), the (five days’) notice of termination was, pursuant to the lease, sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, and the court found the notice insufficient, not because of the manner of service, but because the receipt “shows delivery two days after the ‘date of this letter’ thereby reducing the notice period to three days.” (Cf., Ringel v Mansouri, NYLJ, Mar. 13, 1996, at 26, col 4 [Civ Ct, NY County] [concerning the timing of service].)