ATM Four, L. L. C., Petitioner,
Rosa E. Ramos, Respondent.
Wolfson & Grossman, Westbury, for petitioner.
William A. Gomes, Garden City, for respondent.
Margaret C. Reilly, J.
In view of the recent amendment of the Emergency Tenant Protection Regulations, the Court hereby vacates its earlier decision, sua sponte, and replaces it with the instant amended version.
The petitioner instituted this summary holdover proceeding against the respondent, seeking to recover possession of real property located at 27 Attorney Street, apartment 1L, Hempstead,
New York, alleging that the respondent failed to timely renew her lease, pursuant to Emergency Tenant Protection Regulations (9 NYCRR [ETPR]) § 2503.5. A hearing was held, at which time the respondent raised several procedural defects warranting dismissal of the petition.
The respondent seeks to dismiss the petition upon the grounds that: the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in that the landlord failed to mail the notice of eviction to the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), pursuant to Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 (L 1974, ch 576, § 4) regulations; the landlord failed to serve the renewal notice by certified mail as required by ETPR § 2503.5; and the landlord restored the tenancy when it entered into a new lease agreement with the respondent and accepted rent payment.
At the hearing, the petitioner's building superintendent testified that, on December 18, 2000, he personally delivered a set of renewal forms and instructions to the respondent. The property manager testified that the respondent returned the form on March 5, 2001, the same day petitioner served a 15-day notice of termination on the respondent.
Contrary to the superintendent's testimony, the respondent testified that the superintendent delivered the lease renewal forms on February 23, 2001. The respondent testified that she delivered the renewal forms to the landlord's office the following day at which time she was informed that her purported renewal was untimely. The respondent also testified that the landlord's agent informed her that she would be evicted if she did not execute a new lease. The respondent alleged that the new lease agreement for her apartment has a vacancy rate increase of 16% over her prior rent as opposed to a 2% renewal increase if the landlord had accepted her renewal. It is uncontroverted that the petitioner accepted the lease and that the rent for the first month of the new lease term has been paid.
The Court will first address the respondent's claim that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction due to petitioner's failure to serve the agency. Respondent contends that the petitioner was required to mail a copy of the eviction notice to the DHCR, pursuant to ETPR § 2504.3 (c). The Emergency Tenant Protection Regulations were recently amended. This amendment repealed the former provision of section 2504.3 (c) and dispensed with the landlord's obligation to file a copy of the eviction notice with the DHCR. Thus, under the current law, the petitioner is not required to file a copy of the eviction notice with DHCR.
The Court will now turn to the respondent's claim that the landlord failed to serve the renewal notice by certified mail as required by the ETPR. ETPR § 2503.5 (a) states that a " landlord shall notify the tenant in occupancy not more than 120 days and not less than 90 days prior to the end of the tenant's lease term, by certified mail, of such termination of the lease term and offer to renew the lease at the legal regulated rent permitted for such ...