()

Judge Eleanora Ofshtein

 

Read Full-Text Decision

In this summary holdover proceeding, landlord sued to recover possession of the subject premises, while tenant Plair moved for dismissal for failure to state a cause of action, alleging the petition lacked specificity and the termination notice allegations failed to meet the legal standard of nuisance. Landlord argued Plair’s arrest itself was sufficient to commence suit, but the court disagreed. While finding the allegations in the petition “verbose,” without an additional showing of facts to establish a pattern of continuity or recurrence of objectionable conduct, could not rise to the requirements of Rent Stabilization Code §2524.3(b). Plair argued the allegations in the notice of termination did not meet the legal standard of nuisance. The court agreed, noting landlord chose to bring suit under a standard, requiring a showing of more than the subject incident alleged, but it did not indicate a pattern of conduct, nor did it provide numerous instances of misconduct, and did not detail the “extreme nuisance” alleged in the notice, as required under the statute used, §2524.3(b). Generally, the court ruled cases required more than a single, even criminal, act to constitute a nuisance. It found the language of the termination notice insufficient to support a cause of action asserted, granting dismissal.