Opinion
No. 15–439.
12-04-2015
69 E.M. LLC, Petitioner–Landlord–Respondent, v. Carmen MEJIA, Respondent–Tenant–Appellant.
Order (Brenda S. Spears, J.), dated April 27, 2015, reversed, with $10 costs, tenant's motion for summary judgment granted and the petition dismissed.
The notice of termination underlying this nuisance holdover proceeding, though containing one relatively specific factual allegation—“[y]ou have damaged the walls and floors in the apartment due to the removal of the molding”—also broadly alleged that tenant engaged in some undefined “anti-social, disruptive, destructive, dangerous and/or illegal behavior,” caused other unspecified “substantial damage throughout the apartment,” that tenant damaged unidentified “fixtures,” and indeterminately “caused a serious health, safety and fire hazard” to herself, other tenants and building employees. These other broad, unparticularized allegations were too generic and conclusory to enable tenant to prepare a defense and otherwise satisfy the specificity requirement of Rent Stabilization Code § 2524.2(b) (see Berkely Assoc. Co. v. Camlakides, 173 A.D.2d 193 [1991], affd 78 N.Y.2d 1098 [1991] ; cf. Pinehurst Constr. Corp. v. Schlesinger, 38 AD3d 474 [2007] ; City of New York v. Valera, 216 A.D.2d 237 [1995] ). In the circumstances, and measured against the test of reasonableness (see Oxford Towers Co., LLC v. Leites, 41 AD3d 144 [2007] ), the substantial, impermissibly vague allegations in the notice of termination “render[ ] the entire notice deficient” (542 Holding Corp. v. Prince Fashions, Inc., 46 AD3d 309, 311 [2007] ; see generally Singh v. Ramirez, 20 Misc.3d 142[A], 2008 N.Y. Slip Op 51680[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008] ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur.