I. Whether
Plaintiff is Entitled to Summary Judgment on its Declaratory Judgment Claim
A party moving for summary judgment "must make a prima facie showing of
entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any
material issues of fact from the case." (See Winegrad v New York Univ. Med.
Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985].) If the movant makes that prima facie showing, the
burden shifts to the non-movant to produce evidence raising material issues of fact
requiring a trial. (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986].)
A. Whether Plaintiff's Notice of Default was Valid
Defendant argues that the notice of default is facially invalid because it "because it
lacks the requisite specificity to sufficiently apprise Mr. Frankel of the claimed defaults
under the Lease." (NYSCEF No. 76 at 5.) This argument is unpersuasive.[FN1]
The default notice states that under "Article II, paragraph 4 and 18 of the proprietary
[*2]lease and paragraph 25 of the house rules . . . the
Estate of Gloria Frankel . . . is in default" of the lease and house rules because, in
violation of those provisions, "the Estate has failed and continues to fail to maintain
homeowners insurance for the apartment." (NYSCEF No. 30 at 1.) This statement is
sufficiently clear and specific to put defendant on notice of the claimed default.
Defendant emphasizes that the notice states that the list of facts included to substantiate
this default is nonexclusive. (See NYSCEF No. 76 at 7-8, citing NYSCEF No. 30
at 1-2.) But neither the listed facts themselves, nor the statement that other supporting
facts might also exist, creates any ambiguity about the nature of the default at issue, as
defendant suggests.