Judge Laurie L. Lau
After the service of a rent demand notice, Prospect Heights Associates commenced a nonpayment proceeding against defendant tenant, seeking to recover outstanding rent for a Brooklyn apartment. When defendant failed to appear or answer, Prospect Heights obtained a default judgment against her in the amount of $7,207. Defendant moved for summary judgment after the court vacated her default. Prospect Heights asserted that it acted properly in terminating defendant’s subsidy for failing to provide complete and accurate information during recertification, that all required notices were provided and in proper form, and that it properly sought market rent in the context of a nonpayment proceeding. The court dismissed the proceeding, finding that the letter sent by Prospect Heights to defendant failed to state what the rent would be after termination of the subsidy and did not advise her that the failure to pay the rent after the termination of the subsidy could result in actions to enforce termination of the tenancy through litigation. The court, therefore, held that the absence of a notice of intent to terminate the subsidy assistance renders Prospect Heights’ rent demand, seeking market rent, fatally flawed.
