Several months after the initial court date on May 29, 2025 (after dismissal for both sides' failure to appear, and two adjournments for respondent to appear), respondent Deetjen (respondent) obtained counsel and filed the instant motion to dismiss pursuant to 15 USC § 9058 (the CARES Act) and CPLR 3211.
Essentially, respondent argues the instant proceeding is defective and requires dismissal, [*2]alleging noncompliance with the CARES Act because petitioner did not serve a 30-day termination notice.
Petitioner does not dispute that the building is subject to a federally backed Fannie Mae mortgage, as alleged by respondent (see NYSCEF Doc Nos. 22-24).
As such, respondent argues the building (and his apartment therein) is a covered property under the CARES Act. Petitioner concedes the CARES Act is applicable to nonpayment proceedings, but not to this holdover.
Respondent's motion cites to multiple cases wherein other trial-level courts in New York City have dismissed nonpayment proceedings for failure to comply with the 30-day notice requirement under the CARES Act where only 14-day rent{**88 Misc 3d at 636} demands were served for covered properties.[FN1] Similarly, respondent cites to courts in other states dismissing nonpayment cases for covered properties where landlords did not comply with the 30-day notice requirement of the CARES Act (see NYSCEF Doc No. 21).