notice, and service by certified mail and regular mail addressed to NYCHA on the 9th
floor of 90 Church Street, rather than the 11th floor at that same address, is sufficient;
and (3) respondent should not be permitted to file an untimely answer as petitioner would
be substantially prejudiced by such a late filing.
On reply, respondent argues that Culhane v Patterson (54 Misc 3d 10, 43 NYS3d 663 [App
Term 2nd Jud Dep't 2016]), and other cases cited by petitioner on the "stale notice"
claim, are inapposite, as this is not a holdover based upon a "Golub" notice of
non-renewal of a Rent Stabilized lease, as those cases are; further, respondent points out
that the amount of time that transpired here between service of the termination notice and
commencement of this proceeding is significantly longer than what it was in those
cases.
DISCUSSION
Viability of the Predicate 90-Day Termination
Notice
New York State courts evaluate the sufficiency of predicate notices
based on a standard of reasonableness "in view of all attendant circumstances". Oxford Towers Co, LLC v
Leites (41 AD3d 144, 837 NYS2d 131 [1st Dep't 2007]); Avon Bard Co v
Aquarian Found (260 AD2d 207, 210, 688 NYS2d 514, 517 [1st Dep't], app
dism'd, 93 NY2d 998, 717 NE2d 1080, 695 NYS2d [*2]743 [1999]); Hughes v Lenox Hill Hospital (226
AD2d 4, 17, 651 NYS2d 418, 427 [1st Dep't 1996], app dism'd, 90 NY2d 829,
683 NE2d 17, 660 NYS2d 552 [1997]). The notice must provide sufficient information
to meet the tests of reasonableness and due process. Jewish Theological Seminary of
America v Fitzer (258 AD2d 337, 338, 685 NYS2d 215 [1st Dep't 1999]). Predicate
notices are not amendable; an eviction proceeding based upon an insufficient notice must