riod for which rent was owed due to misattribution of ear-
1080 86 MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS, 3d SERIES
marked payment]; 75 Wall Assoc. LLC v Zordan, 78 Misc 3d
1236[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 50435[U], *3 [Civ Ct, NY County
2023] [‘‘The demand itself must apprise the Respondent of the
rents owed and for what time periods, not, as Petitioner argues,
the demand in combination with whatever documents the Re-
spondent may possess’’]). Therefore, the notice of nonrenewal
was unreasonable under the circumstances, and this holdover
proceeding predicated thereupon must be dismissed.
B. The Petition
Respondent also seeks dismissal on the basis that the peti-
tion fails to state the facts upon which the proceeding is based
as required by applicable law. The petition was filed on October
14, 2024. It annexed and incorporated by reference a copy of
the notice of nonrenewal and otherwise stated with respect to
the rent owed by respondent that
‘‘Respondent is liable to Petitioner for rent in the
amount of 28,350.00 through August 31, 2024, plus
the fair value of use and occupancy from September
1, 2024 through the date of judgment, and reason-
able attorneys’ fees incurred by Petitioner in its
prosecution of this proceeding, in an amount to be
determined by the Court.’’ (See petition, NYSCEF
Doc No. 1 ¶ 12.)
The petition also annexed the ‘‘Notice to Tenant of Applicabil-
ity or Inapplicability of the New York State Good Cause Evic-
tion Law’’ (the GCEL rider) (see NYSCEF Doc No. 2 at 3 et
seq.). Petitioner checked the boxes on that form indicating that
the subject premises are subject to GCEL and that the good
cause for nonrenewal of the lease was the tenant’s failure to
pay rent due and owing (id. at 3-5).
A petition in a summary eviction proceeding must ‘‘[s]tate