petitioner a notarized surrender of tenancy and mailed the keys to petitioner's registered address.
It is undisputed that respondent was in possession of the subject apartment when the case
commenced in September 2019, and he returned the keys to petitioner in June 2020. The [*3]parties agree that possession is not an issue since June 2020, and
the remaining claims are for U & O.
In support of the motion respondent states the petitioner's nuisance claim, pursuant to RSC
2524.3(b), must be dismissed because the notice of termination is fatally defective as it fails to
allege sufficient non-conclusory facts, and fails to allege a continuous course of conduct.
Respondent argues that RSC 2524.2(b) requires that a notice of termination include "facts
necessary to establish the existence of the grounds for eviction under 2524.3. A notice that
merely recites the legal ground for eviction but fails to set forth facts to support the claims is
ineffective, and cannot serve as a predicate notice in a holdover proceeding. Respondent states
the language in the notice must be definite and unequivocal, unambiguous, and specifically
describe the objectionable conduct. The predicate notice must state facts with sufficient
specificity to "discourage baseless eviction claims founded upon speculation and surmise, rather
than concrete facts." London Terrace Garden, LP v. Heller, 40 Misc 3d 135[A](AT, 1st
Dept. 2009) Respondent argues that a predicate notice must provide additional information to
enable the tenant to frame a defense and to meet the test of reasonableness and due process,
citing Jewish Theological Seminary of Am. V. Fitzer, 258 AD2d 337, 338 (1st Dept.
1999) Respondent states that if a landlord does not have concrete facts to support its claim, then