kson, 142 Misc 2d 984, 985 (App Term, 1st Dept 1989), is so "entwined" with city oversight that it falls within the scope of Fourteenth Amendment due process protection. Thus, landlord must articulate a good cause basis for eviction before terminating respondent's tenancy. Notice of such reasons for eviction is required, [*4]and mere expiration of a lease is insufficient.
Here, the notice of termination states no good cause for respondent's eviction from her apartment in petitioner HDFC's building, as required by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Rushie v Simms, NYLJ, Dec 31, 1988, p 23 col 4 (Civ Ct, Bronx Co). This predicate notice cannot be amended after commencement of the proceeding to include grounds that may constitute good cause, even if such grounds may have existed. Chinatown Apartments v Chu Cho Lam, 51 NY2d 786 (1980). Since the notice of termination herein states no good cause basis for respondent's eviction other than the expiration of her lease, and the government is so entwined with the operation of the subject building that due process protections are triggered, the notice cannot support the within holdover petition, which also states no such basis for eviction. 512 East 11th Street HDFC v Grimmet, supra; 157 West 123rd St. Tenants Assn v Hickson, supra; Rushie v Simms, supra. Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed.
For all of the above stated reasons, respondent's motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 is granted, and the petition is dismissed. Such dismissal is without prejudice to a new proceeding based on a notice of termination stating a good cause for respondent's eviction that satisfies the due process protection of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.