<p>Here, the predicate rent notice, which sought rent arrears for May 2016 through September 2016, did not satisfy these requirements. While landlord admittedly had received the payments that were earmarked for May and June 2016, it failed to apply those payments to the respective periods for which they had been intended. Furthermore, landlord
omitted this payment from the rent notice. In light of the magnitude of the inaccuracies in the amounts sought in the rent notice, we find that tenant may have been prejudiced in his ability to respond to the demand, formulate defenses, and avoid litigation or eviction (<a href="../2016/2016_50613.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Inland Diversified Real Estate Serv., LLC v Keiko NY, Inc.</i>, 51 Misc 3d 139</a>[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50613[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2016]; <i>cf. 10 Midwood LLC v Hyacinth</i>, 2003 NY Slip Op 50789[U], at *1). Given that the rent notice was defective and that it cannot be amended (<i>see Chinatown Apts. v Chu Cho Lam</i>, 51 NY2d 786, 787 [1980]; <a href="../2018/2018_50092.htm" target="_blank"><i>125 Ct. St., LLC v Sher</i>, 58 Misc 3d 150</a>[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50092[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]), the Civil Court properly granted the motion to dismiss the petition. </p> <p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed.</p> <p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.</p> <br> <br>ENTER: <br>Paul Kenny <br>Chief Clerk <br>Decision Date: January 11, 2019 <br><br><div align="center">