Under the typical conditional limitation clause in a lease, when a tenant violates a substantial obligation of its tenancy, the landlord is permitted to serve a notice to cure on the tenant demanding that the tenant cure the conduct alleged on or before the expiration of the cure period. If the tenant fails to cure, the landlord is then permitted to serve a notice of termination terminating the lease.

An often litigated issue is the question of how specific a predicate notice must be in order to constitute a valid notice. Oftentimes, the issue concerns the specificity of the notice to cure, in which the tenant claims that the notice fails to allege sufficient facts to apprize the tenant of what it must do to cure the alleged defaults set forth in the notice. The issue, however, also arises in the context of the termination notice, and a very recent decision issued by Judge Marc Finkelstein of Civil Court, Kings County in BEC Continuum Owners v. Taylor, NYLJ, 1527198386NY7184417 (May 30, 2018) (Taylor) is just such a case where the adequacy of the termination notice was at issue.

“Incorporated by Reference”

This content has been archived.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

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]