SNAIL MAIL NOT TOO SLOW FOR TERMINATION NOTICE

In 21 W. 58th St. Corp. v. Foster , the landlord attempted to pursue a nonprimary residence holdover proceeding against Ronald L. Foster. After the New York County Civil Court granted Foster's motion for summary judgment dismissing the case based on the improper service of a predicate notice, the Appellate Term, First Department, reversed and reinstated the case. According to the AT1, service was not defective because the landlord had not factored in an additional five days for mailing the document to the tenant.

In a 2004 New York State Court of Appeals's case, ATM One, LLC v. Landaverde , the landlord in that dispute had started a holdover proceeding against a tenant protected by the Emergency Tenant Protection Regulations. The regulated tenant claimed that the 10-day notice to cure which had been mailed had not afforded her enough time to effect a correction of the delineated default (due to the time it took for the notice to travel through the mail). After several appeals, the state's highest court concluded that the holdover needed to be dismissed since the owner had failed to add five more days to the delineated curative timeframe to allow for mailing.

By contrast, Foster's case dealt with a "Notice of Nonrenewal" -- a document which serves as a predicate to a holdover wherein it is alleged the tenant is not using the premises as his or her primary residence. Since no corrective action was required, the AT1 declined to extend the Landaverde holding to such notices.

Escargot, anyone?

For a copy of the Appellate Term's decision, please use this link: 21 W. 58th St. Corp. v. Foster

For a copy of the Court of Appeals's decision, please use this link: ATM One, LLC v. Landaverde