Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rochdale Village, Inc. v. Stone

Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County

December 27, 2019

Rochdale Village, Inc., Petitioner-Landlord,
v.
Michael Stone, Respondent-Shareholder, GREGORY ROLAND WILLIAMS, "JOHN DOE," and "JANE DOE", Respondents-Occupants.

          Matilde Pena, Esq. Matilda Pena & Associates, P.C. Attorneys for Petitioner

          Michael Kang, Esq. Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Attorneys for Respondent

          HON. CLINTON J. GUTHRIE J.H.C.

         Recitation, as required by CPLR § 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of Respondent's motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(7):

         Papers/Numbered

         Notice of Appearance and Notice of Motion & Affirmation/Affidavit/Exhibits Annexed 1

         Affirmation in Opposition & Exhibits Annexed 2

         Affirmation in Reply & Exhibits Annexed 3

         Upon the foregoing cited papers, the decision and order on Respondent's motion to dismiss is as follows:

         PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         The immediate holdover proceeding was commenced by Notice of Petition and Petition dated June 10, 2019. Annexed to the Petition are a "Ten (10) Day Notice to Cure" (hereinafter "Notice to Cure") and "Ten (10) Day Notice to Terminate" (hereinafter "Notice of Termination"), which allege that Respondents Michael Stone (cooperator of the subject premises, a Mitchell-Lama cooperative apartment) and occupants Gregory Roland Williams, John Doe, and Jane Doe committed a nuisance in the subject premises, violated a substantial obligation of the Occupancy Agreement, and used the premises for illegal or immoral purposes. The notices contain identical allegations, except the Notice of Termination adds an additional allegation based on an incident that purportedly occurred after the service of the Notice to Cure.

         After the initial court date on July 3, 2019, the proceeding was adjourned for Respondent Michael Stone to seek counsel through the Universal Access program. Prior to the next court date (August 13, 2019), the Legal Aid Society appeared for Respondent and filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, leave to interpose an answer. After an adjournment for submission of opposition and reply papers, the Court heard argument on Respondent's motion on September 18, 2019 and reserved decision.

         ANALYSIS

         The crux of Respondent's motion is that the Notice of Termination is defective insofar as it does not allege any facts demonstrating that Respondent failed to cure the allegations set out in the Notice to Cure. In 31-67 Astoria Corp. v. Landraira, 54 Misc.3d 131 (A), 52 N.Y.S.3d 249 (App. Term 2d Dep't 2017), the Appellate Term, Second Department held that a termination notice "was defective because it failed to allege that the defaults specified in the notice to cure, which were curable, had not been cured during the cure period." (Citing Hew-Burg Realty v. Mocerino, 163 Misc.2d 639, 622 N.Y.S.2d 187 (Civ. Ct. Kings County 1994)). Moreover, "a violation removed during the cure period will not support the termination of a lease based on the tenant's alleged default." Id. See also Sudimac v. Beck, 63 Misc.3d 1208 (A), 2019 NY Slip Op 50442(U) (Civ. Ct. Queens County ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.