When starting a holdover case, it is risky for a landlord's attorney to sign a predicate notice (whether it be a notice to cure, notice of termination, or other variation on the theme).
Harking back to 1986, when the Court of Appeals decided the seminal case of Siegel v. Kentucky Fried Chicken of Long Island, the law has pretty much been that attorneys who are "strangers" to a transaction -- that is, have no history of prior interaction with the tenant and who not are otherwise authorized to execute documents that could bring a tenancy to an end -- should refrain from signing such papers.
Although this proscription has been well-entrenched for the last two decades, every once and a while you'll still find an attorney who inadvertently makes an error, as was seen in the case of Smith v. Country Services, Inc. In that particular holdover, a Justice Court Judge of the Town of Wallkill (Orange County, New York) granted a landlord possession of certain space and awarded a money judgment in the amount of $2,685.
On appeal, the Appellate Term, 9th and 10th Judicial Districts, reversed on the grounds that the lease had not been properly terminated. In no uncertain terms, the court expressed its displeasure with the fact that the pertinent notices had been signed by the landlord's counsel. As the appellate court observed:
In our opinion, the termination notice was ineffective because it was issued by an attorney not named in the lease and was not accompanied by proof of the attorney's authority to issue the notice; nor was there any claim or proof showing that tenant had reason to know of the attorney's authority to act. Under the circumstances, the petition must be dismissed ....
More roadkill for Wallkill?
For a copy of the Appellate Term's decision, please use this link: Smith v. Country Services, Inc.