Courtney House, LLC v Goetz

[*1] Courtney House, LLC v Goetz 2016 NY Slip Op 50751(U) Decided on May 12, 2016 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 12, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Hunter, Jr., Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570030/16

Courtney House, LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent, -

against

Bernard Goetz, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.

Tenant, as limited by his briefs, appeals from that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jack Stoller, J.), dated November 16, 2015, which denied his motion to dismiss the holdover petition pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7).

Per Curiam.

Order (Jack Stoller, J.), dated November 16, 2015, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs.

The notice of termination underlying this nuisance holdover proceeding alleged, inter alia, that the stabilized apartment is in "an extremely cluttered and unhygienic condition," with "empty food cans, refuse and other unidentifiable items completely covering most of the flat surfaces and floors . . . and piled several feet high throughout the apartment"; that tenant has "continually harbored wild animals" including squirrels and rats in the apartment; that a moth infestation spread from tenant's apartment to other apartments; and that tenant's course of conduct violates Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2524.3(b). In such form, the termination notice described a nuisance in violation of the Rent Stabilization Code (see Domen Holding Co. v Aranovich, 1 NY3d 117, 124—125 [2003]) with sufficient detail to have allowed tenant to prepare a defense (see City of New York v Valera, 216 AD2d 237 [1995]) and otherwise satisfied the specificity requirement of Rent Stabilization Code § 2524.2(b) (see Hughes v Lenox Hill Hosp., 226 AD2d 4, 17 [1996], lv denied 90 NY2d 829 [1997]; Pinehurst Constr. Corp. v Schlesinger, 38 AD3d 474 [2007]).

The notice of termination was properly signed by landlord's managing agent, who was well known to tenant based on previous dealings and who was permitted by the lease to give notice (see Ashley Realty Corp. v Knight, 73 AD3d 500, 501 [2010]; Bilkis v Leader, 176 Misc 2d 594, 595 [1998]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: May 12, 2016