"In reading the language of the Act as a whole, the plain and unambiguous language supports that the 30-day notice requirement is applicable to nonpayment of rent cases only and not to cases such as this one brought for serious nuisance. This is consistent with the Connecticut Executive Orders providing for exemptions to the State imposed Moratoria. While the defendant notes that there are no Connecticut state or federal cases that have addressed this issue in other than nonpayment of rent cases, there is good reason for that; specifically because those are indeed the cases to which these sections apply." (Western Haven Hous. Auth. v Armstrong, 2021 Conn Super LEXIS 1061, *7-8 [citations omitted].)
This court adopts and follows the analyses of the foregoing courts and agrees that a plain reading of subsections (b) and{**88 Misc 3d at 641} (c) elucidate that they are meant to be read in unison and not as bifurcated provisions, as respondent urges.[FN5]
While subsection (c) does not explicitly contain the phrase "nonpayment of rent," like subsection (b), it is undoubtedly limited to a nonpayment case, like subsection (b). 15 USC § 9058 (c) (2) states that a landlord cannot issue the 30-day notice under 15 USC § 9058 (c) (1) until expiration of the moratorium period "described in subsection (b)." As subsection (b) is expressly limited to nonpayment cases, the notice under subsection (c) (1) is similarly limited by implication due to the explicit reference to subsection (b)—and necessarily its limitation—in subsection (c) (2).
The court finds that the CARES Act, and its 30-day notice requirement, does not apply to a holdover proceeding and respondent's motion to dismiss is therefore denied.
Conclusion