| N.Y. City Civ. Ct. | Feb 24, 1998
OPINION OF THE COURT
DISCUSSION
Petitioner sent a three-day notice which listed the sum owed as $7,385.20 and the breakdown is listed as follows:
“758.00/May 1997 757.00/Apr97 950.00/Mar97
“950.00/Feb97 950.00/Jan97 153.00/Dec96
“2867.20/Nov96 to Feb96”
The purpose of the rent demand is not only to inform the tenant that in the absence of payment of the demanded amount or surrender of the premises, legal proceeding will be instituted,
Respondent is a recipient of Department of AIDS Services (DAS) and they send money to the landlord each month. Petitioner is disputing that he has received payment of DAS shelter checks for the current months. In order for respondent to defend this action, the respondent would have to get a printout from the agency to show payments made by the agency. Without a clear breakdown, he does not know which specific monies are being demanded. DAS will not pay twice for a month’s rent and unless there is a clear and accurate month-by-month breakdown of the rental arrears, such payments will not be made by the agency. Since the respondent is relying on the DAS payments to pay his rent, he is prejudiced by an inaccurate breakdown. In addition to DAS payments, respondent is responsible for paying a portion of his rent.
After reviewing the rent demand sent to respondent, the court rules that the predicated rent demand is not in accordance with RPAPL 711 (2). The petitioner indicated a lump-sum amount for the period February 1996 through November 1996. The court finds that this type of pleading fails to apprise the respondent of the correct amount due for each month. The court also finds that the statements in the rent demand are “vague and misleading” and give the respondent no indication as to how the petitioner arrived at his figures.
Petitioner’s rent demand failed to give respondent notice of the actual claims and afforded him no opportunity to prepare his defenses to this action. By failing to give a clear calculation of the rental arrears, the respondent is uninformed as to how he should proceed in order to avoid litigation and once com-, menced, how to proceed with this case. If payments were made or there were issues of latches and stale rent, such claims could be used to defend the action.
The statute requires that the rent demand be clear, unequivocal and provide the tenant with “actual notice of the alleged amount due * * * period for which [the rental] claim is made * * * and [an] approximate good faith sum of rent assertedly due for each such period.” (Schwartz v Weiss-Newell, 87 Misc. 2d 558" court="N.Y. City Civ. Ct." date_filed="1976-07-22" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/schwartz-v-weiss-newell-6197444?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6197444">87 Misc 2d 558, 561.) Notably, petitioner’s exhibit B gives a month-by-month breakdown of the rent and shows public assistance payments which were credited to the respondent’s account, however such a detailed breakdown was not included in the rent demand. Petitioner’s argument that a lump-sum breakdown is allowable, in this proceeding, under RPAPL 711 (2), is
Proof of a demand for rent is a jurisdictional requisite to maintain a summary proceeding (Solack Estates v Goodman, 102 Misc. 2d 504" court="N.Y. App. Term." date_filed="1979-10-16" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/solack-estates-inc-v-goodman-6200415?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6200415">102 Misc 2d 504 [App Term, 1st Dept 1979], affd 78 AD2d 512 [1st Dept 1980]), and failing to comply calls for dismissal of the action. Defects in the predicate notice are not subject to cure by amendment and require dismissal of the proceeding. (Chinatown Apts. v Chu Cho Lam, 51 NY2d 786 [1980].) Respondent’s motion is granted and the proceeding is dismissed without prejudice.
After reviewing all motion papers by both sides, the court dismisses the petition without prejudice because of an improper demand. As the proceeding is dismissed, the court does not address the other issues raised by the parties.