69 E.M. LLC v Mejia

[*1] 69 E.M. LLC v Mejia 2015 NY Slip Op 51765(U) Decided on December 4, 2015 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 4, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ.
15-439

69 E.M. LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,

against

Carmen Mejia, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.

Tenant appeals from that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Brenda S. Spears, J.), dated April 27, 2015, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Brenda S. Spears, J.), dated April 27, 2015, reversed, with $10 costs, tenant's motion for summary judgment granted and the petition dismissed.

The notice of termination underlying this nuisance holdover proceeding, though containing one relatively specific factual allegation - "[y]ou have damaged the walls and floors in the apartment due to the removal of the molding" - also broadly alleged that tenant engaged in some undefined "anti-social, disruptive, destructive, dangerous and/or illegal behavior," caused other unspecified "substantial damage throughout the apartment," that tenant damaged unidentified "fixtures," and indeterminately "caused a serious health, safety and fire hazard" to herself, other tenants and building employees. These other broad, unparticularized allegations were too generic and conclusory to enable tenant to prepare a defense and otherwise satisfy the specificity requirement of Rent Stabilization Code § 2524.2(b) (see Berkely Assoc. Co. v Camlakides, 173 AD2d 193 [1991], affd 78 NY2d 1098 [1991]; cf. Pinehurst Constr. Corp. v Schlesinger, 38 AD3d 474 [2007]; City of New York v Valera, 216 AD2d 237 [1995]). In the circumstances, and measured against the test of reasonableness (see Oxford Towers Co., LLC v Leites, 41 AD3d 144 [2007]), the substantial, impermissibly vague allegations in the notice of termination "render[] the entire notice deficient" (542 Holding Corp. v Prince Fashions, Inc., 46 AD3d 309, 311 [2007]; see generally Singh v Ramirez, 20 Misc 3d 142[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51680[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: December 04, 2015