85th Columbus Corp. v Cooperman

Annotate this Case
85th Columbus Corp. v Cooperman 2007 NY Slip Op 08759 [45 AD3d 358] November 13, 2007 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, January 16, 2008

85th Columbus Corp., Respondent,
v
Steven Cooperman, Appellant.

—[*1] Penn Proefriedt Schwarzfeld & Schwartz, New York City (Sharyn A. Tritto of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas S. Fleishell & Associates, P.C., New York City (Susan C. Stanley of counsel), for respondent.

Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department, entered December 21, 2006, which reversed an order, Civil Court, New York County (Michelle D. Schreiber, J.), dated December 21, 2005, granting tenant's motion to dismiss the petition in a nonprimary residence summary holdover proceeding, and reinstated the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellate Term correctly determined that the notice of nonrenewal was timely served. While a landlord serving a 10-day notice to cure by mail must factor an additional five days into the cure period (Matter of ATM One v Landaverde, 2 NY3d 472 [2004]), there is no requirement that a landlord add five days to service by mail of a 90/150-day notice of nonrenewal (21 W. 58th St. Corp. v Foster, 44 AD3d 410 [2007]; Skyview Holdings, LLC v Cunningham, 13 Misc 3d 102 [2006]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, McGuire and Malone, JJ.