Peng v Van Zandt

[*1] Peng v Van Zandt 2007 NY Slip Op 50272(U) [14 Misc 3d 138(A)] Decided on February 20, 2007 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on February 20, 2007
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKEON, P.J., McCOOE, SCHOENFELD, JJ
570644/06.

Agnes Peng, Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant, -and- John Su Hsieh, Petitioner-Landlord,

against

Caroline Van Zandt, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent.

Landlord Agnes Peng appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Michelle D. Schreiber, J.), dated September 7, 2006, which granted tenant's motion to dismiss the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.

PER CURIAM:

Order (Michelle D. Schreiber, J.), dated September 7, 2006, reversed, without costs, motion denied, petition reinstated, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

The notice of nonrenewal underlying this owner occupancy holdover proceeding, stated, inter alia, that landlord Peng "has decided to assume occupancy" of tenant's apartment, "to live in as her primary residence in the City of New York," that Peng "already has her furniture in the basement in the building" and "plans to move into the apartment as soon as possible." In such form, the notice sufficiently complied with the specificity requirements of Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) §2524.2(b) and governing precedent (see Berkeley Assoc. Co. v Camlakides, 173 AD2d 193 [1991], affd 78 NY2d 1098 [1991]; McGoldrick v. DeCruz, 195 Misc 2d 414 [2003]). A predicate notice in a holdover proceeding need not lay bare a landlord's trial proof, and will be upheld in the face of a "jurisdictional" challenge where, as here, the notice is "as a whole sufficient adequately to advise ... tenant and to permit it to frame a defense" (Rascoff/Zsyblat Org., Inc. v Dirs. Guild of Am., Inc., 297 AD2d 241, 242 [2002]).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: February 20, 2007