Notice Requirement(s) for an 'Owner's Use' Proceeding?
In their Landlord-Tenant Law column, Warren A. Estis and Michael E. Feinstein raise the question of whether both a "Golub" notice and a notice of termination are required in "owners use" proceedings. Caselaw seems to offer different opinions.
August 01, 2017 at 02:03 PM
5 minute read
Section 2524.4(a)(1) of the Rent Stabilization Code (RSC) allows a property owner to commence a proceeding to recover possession of a rent stabilized apartment upon the expiration of the existing lease term, on the ground that the owner, or a member of the owner's immediate family, seeks to use and occupy the apartment as his or her primary residence. This is commonly known as an “owner's use” holdover proceeding.
A question that was just recently at issue before Judge Lydia C. Lai of Civil Court, Queens County, in Manda v. Badinsky, NYLJ 1202789583670 (Civ. Ct. Queens Co. May 31, 2017) (Manda), was whether in an owner's use proceeding, the landlord is required to serve both a “notice of intent not to renew” (commonly referred to as a 'Golub' notice), and a notice of termination, as predicate notices for the commencement of an eviction proceeding. While the court's answer to that question in Manda was in the affirmative, there is authority to the contrary which creates some confusion on this issue.
'Manda'
In Manda, the landlord served a notice of “owner's intention not to renew lease for personal use and occupancy,” dated Sept. 14, 2015, stating, among other things, that the landlord was “hereby notifying you that your lease which will expire on Jan. 31, 2016 will not be renewed because such owners desire to occupy apartment #2-L as their primary residence….” The notice further stated that the tenant was “obligated to vacate and surrender the premises on Jan. 31, 2016.”
The landlord commenced a summary holdover proceeding based on the notice, and the tenant thereafter moved for summary judgment dismissing the petition. The tenant asserted, inter alia, that the petition should be dismissed because the landlord was required to serve both a notice of intention not to renew the lease and a notice of termination.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBinding a Successor Town Board; Default on Stipulation of Settlement: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Are New York City Housing Providers Ready for the Fair Chance for Housing Act?
10 minute readUS Supreme Court Justices Pass on Landlord Challenge to NY Rent Stabilization
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Biden commutes sentences for 37 of 40 federal death row inmates, including two convicted of California murders
- 2Avoiding Franchisor Failures: Be Cautious and Do Your Research
- 3De-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
- 4Alex Spiro Accuses Prosecutors of 'Unethical' Comments in Adams' Bribery Case
- 5Cannabis Took a Hit on Red Wednesday, but Hope Is On the Way
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250