Judge Scott Fairgrieve
Landlord commenced this non-payment action by notice of petition and petition seeking to recover possession of the subject premises. Tenant moved for dismissal arguing that the three day demand for rent served on it was insufficient and defective. The court noted the purpose of the demand requirement was to afford a tenant notice to be able to remedy any default and prevent litigation. It stated, at a minimum, landlord must inform tenant of the specific period for which rent was in default, and the approximate good-faith sum of rent due. The court stated the demand must be served under the provisions of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law §735 requiring written notice by personal delivery to tenant. Tenant argued the three day demand for rent was insufficient as landlord relied on the lease which required 10 days’ notice, instead of three. The court found tenant’s argument lacked merit, stating where a lease identified a specific method for a demand for rent, the demand must be made according to the terms of the lease. It ruled the three day demand for rent not only complied with RPAPL §711, as it sufficiently detailed the amount of rent due and owing, but also complied with the terms of the written lease, denying dismissal.
