FAILED TO APPRISE TENANT OF CURE PERIOD’S DURATION
After the Suffolk County District Court dismissed the landlord’s holdover petition because the notice to cure failed to advise the tenant “of the complained-of condition,” an appeal ensued.
While the Appellate Term, Second Department, agreed with the outcome, it thought the case should have been dismissed for a different reason. It was of the view that the notice was “defective” because it failed to list the “duration of the cure period” – i.e., how long the tenant had to correct the default. And it was particularly significant that the notice also failed to cite to the pertinent lease provision, suggesting that had the landlord done so, the reference to the pertinent paragraph would have thus provided the necessary information.
Was this case past cure?
# # #
DECISION