Case ID: misc2d_187/html/0421-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[723 NYS2d 592]
    3363 Sedgwick, L. L. C., Appellant, v Nancy Medina, Respondent.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    November 15, 2000
    APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Novick & Kaner, P. C., New Rochelle (Morton Kaner of counsel), for appellant. Lazarus, Lazarus & Winston, Bronx (Harold Bordowitz of counsel), for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered on or about February 15, 2000 reversed, with $10 costs, motion denied, petition reinstated, and matter remanded for further proceedings.

Service of a formal notice to cure was not a sine qua non of the landlord’s maintenance of this summary holdover proceeding based upon allegations that the tenant’s history of chronic rent defaults constituted a violation of a substantial obligation of the tenancy, since “the cumulative páttern of [tenant’s] course of conduct was incapable of ‘cure’ within 10 days” (Adam’s Tower Ltd. Partnership v Richter, 186 Misc 2d 620, 622 [App Term, 1st Dept] [decided after issuance of the order on appeal]; see also, 974 Realty Corp. v Ledford, 9 Misc 2d 240). To the extent that 72nd St. Partners v Otis (NYLJ, Apr. 7, 1993, at 24, col 3 [App Term, 1st Dept]) is to the contrary, it should not be followed.

Parness, P. J., Gangel-Jacob and Suarez, JJ., concur.