Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of this motion: Paper Numbered Respondent’s Notice of Motion, Affirmation, Affidavits, Exhibits Petitioner’s Affirmations in Opposition, Affidavit, Exhibits Respondent’s Affirmation in Reply Papers Considered: (NYSCEF Doc Nos.6 through 18) DECISION/ORDER Upon the foregoing cited papers, the decision and order of this motion is as follows: This summary proceeding was commenced by 1409-1415 St. Johns Place, LLC (“Petitioner”) and seeks to recover possession of Apartment 8, at 1415 St. Johns Place Brooklyn, NY 11213 (“the Subject Premises”) from the rent-stabilized tenant of record, Vardon Callendar (“Respondent”) based on allegations that Respondent has committed a nuisance. On August 9, 202, Petitioner commenced this proceeding by issuance of a 10 Day Notice to Terminate for Nuisance dated April 4, 2022, terminating Respondent’s tenancy as of April 25, 2022. Brooklyn Legal Services filed its appearance on July 14, 2022. Respondent moved to dismiss this proceeding pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (a)(7) on the grounds that Petitioner fails to state a cause of action due to deficiencies in the predicate notice, lacking the specificity required by Section 2524.3(b) of the Rent Stabilization Code. Petitioner filed opposition and Respondent filed reply. Rent Stabilization Code §2524.2(b) provides: Every notice to a tenant to vacate or surrender possession of a housing accommodation shall state the ground under section 2524.3 or 2524.4 of this Part, upon which the owner relies for removal or eviction of the tenant, the facts necessary to establish the existence of such ground, and the date when the tenant is required to surrender possession. Summary proceedings are a special proceeding governed entirety by statute…. and it is well established that there must be strict compliance with the statutory requirements to give the court jurisdiction. (Riverside Syndicate, Inc. v. Saltzman, 49 AD3d 402 [1st Dept 2008][dismissing proceeding for failure to complete service in the timeframe set forth in RPAPL §733[1]). It is undisputed that although Petitioner’s Notice of Termination states “nuisance activities,” the notice does not set forth the specific statutory authority for its termination of the tenancy. It only vaguely informed the Respondent that “the Landlord will commence summary proceedings under the Statute to remove [you]….” Furthermore, the Petition also fails to properly plead any statutory authority to the commencement of the matter. Proper predicate notices are a condition precedent to the commencement of a holdover proceeding and any defect in these notices are not subject to cure and requires dismissal of the petition. (See Chinatown Apartments, Inc. v. Chu Cho Lam, 51 NY2d 786, 788 [1980]). Based on the foregoing, Respondent’s motion for summary judgment is granted and the petition is dismissed. This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court, which shall be uploaded to NYSCEF. Dated: October 23, 2023
