equivocal demand. Id. at695. Accordingly,
A proper demand for rent must fairly afford the tenant, at least, actual notice of the
alleged amount due and of the period for which such claim is made. At a minimum, the landlord
or his agent should clearly inform the tenant of the particular period for which a rent payment is
allegedly in default and of the approximate good faith sum of rent assertedly due for each such
period.
542 Holding Corp. v. Prince
Fashions, Inc., 46 AD3d 309, 310,
848 NYS2d 37, 39 (1st Dept. 2007) citing Schwartz v. Weiss-Newell,
87 Misc 2d 558, 386 NYS2d 191 (Civ. Ct., NY County, 1976).
See also, Shoprite
Supermarkets, Inc. v. Yonkers Plaza Shopping, LLC, 29 AD3d 564, 817 NYS2d 291
(2nd Dept. 2006). A defective predicate notice cannot be cured by amendment and thus requires
dismissal of the petition. Sultanik v. Byrd, 15 Misc 3d 1141A, 841 NYS2d 823 (Just. Ct,
Tn of Ossining, 2007), citing Chinatown Apts. v. Chu Co Lam, 51 NY2d 786, 433
NYS2d 86, 88 (1980).
A Demand for Rent which simply provides a lump sum has been held to be
defective. In St. James Court, supra ., the court dismissed the petition holding:
The petitioner indicated a lump-sum amount for the period of February 1996 through
November 1996. The court finds that this type of pleading fails to apprise the respondent of the
correct amount due for each month. The court also finds that the statements in the rent demand
are "vague and misleading" and give the respondent no indication as to how the petitioner
arrived at his figures. Petitioner's rent demand failed to give respondent notice of the actual
claims and afforded him no opportunity to prepare his defenses to this action. By failing to give a