Hudson Associates v. Benoit
Opinion of the Court
Order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, entered July 13, 1994, which reversed an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Bruce Gould, J.), entered July 19,1991, granting petitioner a final judgment of possession of the subject premises, and dismissed the underlying holdover proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Even if we were to agree with the landlord that the evidence that the tenant had illegally sublet the premises was sufficient, there is no showing of the. latter’s failure timely to cure. In a summary holdover proceeding to recover possession upon the ground of an illegal sublet, the landlord is required to prove as part of its prima facie case that a notice to cure was served and that the tenant has failed to cure. (Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2524.3 [a].) In the instant case, the notice called for a cure of the alleged breach by February 28, 1990. The evidence fails to show who occupied the apartment after 1987, much less after February 28, 1990. The only other evidence on that score was testimony of a single visit to the apartment in January 1990, when the same witness for the landlord as had been there on October 11, 1987 found a "different” person in the apartment. Again, this was before the expiration of the cure period. On such a record, the Appellate Term correctly dismissed the petition. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.