When Maria Z., a rent-stabilized tenant, agreed to relocate to a different building, her contract provided that she would be a "free market" tenant, but her annual rent percentage increases would be akin to those charged to rent-stabilized tenants.
Alleging that she wasn’t using her new place as her primary residence, the company later filed suit to recover it, but Maria asked for the case’s dismissal claiming that her landlord hadn’t given her a notice to cure.
While non-primary residence usually isn’t curable, because the parties’ relocation agreement only incorporated certain components of the Rent Stabilization Code, the Appellate Division, First Department, felt that Maria’s contract, which required a notice to cure, trumped the typical regulatory procedures and requirements.
That was not moving.
To view a copy of the Appellate Division’s decision, please use this link: 235 W 71 Units LLC v. Z.