Matter of Metro Plaza Apts., Inc. v. Buchanan
2022 NY Slip Op 01087
N.Y. App. Div.2022Background
- Petitioner owns a HUD‑subsidized apartment; lease incorporated 24 CFR part 247 notice requirements.
- On Dec. 28, 2018 petitioner served a termination letter stating the lease was terminated for violating the building "Bullying Policy," paraphrasing lease language and 24 CFR definitions but providing no dates, facts, or specific incidents.
- Respondent remained in possession after the termination date; petitioner filed a summary holdover (eviction) in March 2019.
- Respondent entered a general oral denial at the hearing and, during summation, argued the termination notice lacked the specificity required by 24 CFR 247.4(a).
- City Court and County Court ruled for petitioner; on appeal the Appellate Division (3d Dept.) reviewed preservation, jurisdictional, and substantive adequacy of the termination notice.
- The court concluded the notice was legally deficient for failing to state factual predicates, reversed, and dismissed the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of termination notice under 24 CFR 247.4(a) | Notice was sufficient though it paraphrased lease/regulation | Notice was conclusory; lacked facts, dates, acts, or complainant identity | Notice deficient; failed to give specificity to prepare a defense; termination invalid |
| Whether notice defect is jurisdictional (can be raised anytime) | Waived/unpreserved; respondent raised too late | Challenge goes to validity of termination and can be raised | Not jurisdictional; may be a defense but does not implicate subject matter jurisdiction; issue was preserved here and addressed on merits |
| Whether defect can be cured by more specific allegations in subsequent petition | Subsequent pleadings cure defect | Defect cannot be cured by later filing | Defect cannot be cured by the petition; service of a proper termination notice is a condition precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Chinatown Apts. v. Chu Cho Lam, 51 N.Y.2d 786 (1980) (proper termination notice is condition precedent to eviction)
- Escalera v. New York City Housing Auth., 425 F.2d 853 (2d Cir. 1970) (federal regs and due process require adequate notice detailing grounds)
- Matter of 322 W. 47th St. HDFC v. Loo, 153 A.D.3d 1143 (3d Dep't 2017) (defective regulatory notice is a defense but not a subject matter jurisdictional defect)
- 433 W. Assoc. v. Murdock, 276 A.D.2d 360 (1999) (notice noncompliance does not implicate court's subject matter jurisdiction)
- Matter of Volunteers of Am.-Greater N.Y., Inc. v. Almonte, 65 A.D.3d 1155 (2d Dep't 2009) (termination notice must contain factual allegations, not mere conclusions)