Per Curiam
Tenants appealed from a decision awarding landlord possession in a holdover action. Tenants’ daughter moved back into the premises with her dog. Landlord informed tenants that harboring a dog violated their lease. When tenants failed to comply with a notice to cure, a notice of termination was sent. Tenants moved for dismissal arguing they harbored the dog openly and notoriously for more than three months before landlord commenced this holdover, thus they were protected by the Pet Law. The civil court denied tenant’s motion, finding landlord acted diligently in timely commencing a prior suit, but merely acted in a procedurally defective manner. Tenants, on appeal, argued landlord waived its right to enforce the lease’s no-pet provision by failing to start the action within three months after obtaining knowledge of the dog. The panel ruled a seven day notice of termination was required before landlord could commence a prior holdover suit, and landlord’s shortening of the notice in the prior action rendered that notice fatally defective. As such, landlord did not act diligently and the prior holdover action could not be given legal effect, hence tenants’ motion to dismiss should have been granted, and the final judgment awarding landlord possession was reversed.
