THOMAS JEFFERSON OWNERS CORP v. LOKSHIN (2020)

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

Landlord, a residential cooperative corporation, brought this nonpayment summary proceeding against tenant, a shareholder in the corporation and the proprietary lessee of an apartment, alleging that tenant's rent had been unpaid from November 2017 through February 2018. The underlying rent demand included, among other things, items of “additional rent” of $900 for inspection fees and a violation clearing charge by the New York City Department of Housing and Preservation Development (HPD), and $1,610 in legal fees.

By order entered December 11, 2018, insofar as appealed from, the Civil Court granted the branch of a motion by tenant seeking to dismiss the petition and denied, as moot, the branch of a cross motion by landlord seeking summary judgment on the petition, finding, for several reasons, that the rent demand had not constituted a good faith approximation of the amount of rent due.

The HPD fees landlord included in its rent demand did not fall within the coverage of the items permitted as additional rent under the proprietary lease, and, thus, were improperly included in landlord's rent demand. Further, although the proprietary lease permits certain legal fees to be charged to tenant as additional rent, the legal bills landlord submitted were redacted without explanation, and were thus inadequate to support its demand. A rent demand setting forth the approximate good faith amount of rent owed is a statutory prerequisite to bringing a nonpayment proceeding (see EOM 106-15 217th Corp. v. Severine, 62 Misc 3d 141[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50068[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]; 125 Ct. St., LLC v. Sher, 58 Misc 3d 150[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50092[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018] ). Here, the improper fees, as well as the potentially improper fees, constituted a substantial proportion of landlord's total demand. For this reason, we find the rent demand to be defective without passing upon any other alleged deficiencies therein. Since the rent demand was defective, the Civil Court properly granted the branch of tenant's motion seeking to dismiss the petition and denied, as moot, the branch of landlord's cross motion seeking summary judgment on the petition. Landlord's remaining contention lacks merit.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.