151ST AND WALTON LLC v. “John Doe” and “Jane Doe,” Respondents-Undertenants. (2019)

Order (Arlene H. Hahn, J.), dated December 12, 2017, reversed, with $ 10 costs, tenant's cross motion denied, petition reinstated, and matter remanded to Civil Court for further proceedings.

Tenant's cross motion to dismiss this nonprimary residence holdover proceeding, premised upon claimed inadequacies in the notice of lease nonrenewal, should have been denied. The notice alleged, inter alia, that a review of security camera footage revealed that tenant was rarely if ever present in the building; landlord's employees and neighbors have rarely seen tenant in or around the building; landlord was unable to gain access to fix a leak and tenant did not respond to a letter demanding access; and that other individuals were seen coming in and out of the apartment on a regular basis. The notice thus set forth case-specific allegations tending to support landlord's nonprimary residence claim with sufficient detail to have allowed tenant to prepare a defense (see City of New York v. Valera, 216 AD2d 237 [1995]), and otherwise satisfied the specificity requirements of Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2524.2(b) (see Oxford Towers Co., LLC v. Leites, 41 AD3d 144, 144-145 [2007]; Hughes v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 226 AD2d 4, 18 [1996], lv denied 90 NY2d 829 [1997]). Tenant has not shown that he was misled as to the nature of this proceeding or was prejudiced in responding to the petition (see Avon Bard Co. v. Aquarian Found., 260 AD2d 207, 210 [1999], appeal dismissed 93 NY2d 998 [1999]).

In reinstating the petition, we do not pass upon landlord's application for leave to conduct discovery, an issue whose merits were not reached below. Our disposition is without prejudice to landlord's right to renew its application for such relief in Civil Court.

Per Curiam.