While a holdover proceeding was pending, the landlord served two rent demands on the tenant. When the latter moved to dismiss the case (on the grounds that the demands vitiated the termination notice), the landlord cross-moved for use and occupancy payments and sanctions against the tenant, alleging delays and frivolous motions.
After the Queens County Civil Court sided with the tenant and threw the landlord's case out, it denied, as moot, the landlord's cross-motion seeking use and occupancy payments and for sanctions.
On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, ended up modifying the underlying determination. It was of the view that the landlord was statutorily permitted to collect rent while the holdover proceeding was pending, and that the service of two rent demands during the trial did not negatively impact the litigation nor mislead the tenant to her prejudice. It also thought that the Civil Court had properly denied the landlord’s request for sanctions.
As a result, the case was reinstated and sent back to the Civil Court to determine the merits of the landlord's request for use and occupancy.
Do you think this was a demanding standard?
# # #
DECISION