South Brooklyn Ry. Co. v. Heung Man Lau, 2024 NY Slip Op 24139 (2024)

Citation: South Brooklyn Ry. Co. v. Heung Man Lau, 2024 NY Slip Op 24139 (2024)
Parent Document: South Brooklyn Ry. Co. v. Heung Man Lau, 2024 NY Slip Op 24139 (2024)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2024-05-07
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9500911/south-brooklyn-ry-co-v-heung-man-lau/ ↗

Full Text

1,398 chars

While RPAPL 713 does not specify what needs to be stated in a notice to quit, our courts have held that a notice to quit must "advis[e] the occupant to leave the premises by a date certain and further that a summary proceeding will be commenced to evict the occupant in the event he fails to vacate the premises" (Kyriacou v Kangelaris, 169 Misc 2d 236, 237 [Nassau Dist Ct 1996] [internal citations omitted]; see also New York City Housing Authority v Rosario, 65 Misc 3d 1205[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51500[U] [Civ Ct, Bronx County 2019, Sanchez, J.]). Petitioner, therefore, may not bootstrap the follow up stipulations to the original notice to quit because these stipulations omitted statements indicating the consequence for failing to vacate. This omission deprives the Court of subject matter jurisdiction [FN7]
(see Katz v Grifa, 156 Misc 2d 203, 206 [Civ Ct, New York County 1992, Kapnick, J.] [Court lacks subject matters jurisdiction over a summary holdover proceeding where Respondent was not informed of the legal consequences of their failure to vacate the premises within the 10-day period provided by the notice to quit.]). The omission further obscures the Petitioner's intention to terminate the license and seek Respondent's removal because the repeated extension letters imply that the notice to quit was merely advisory or an invitation to negotiate further extensions or renewals.

Other Sections in This Document (70)

Full Text