Opinion
May 8, 2000.
Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered April 7, 1999, affirming orders of the Civil Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered September 7, 199 7 and February 19, 1998, which dismissed the instant holdover proceeding and, upon reargument, adhered to such dismissal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Uri Kaufman, for Petitioner-Appellant-Respondent.
Paul M. Gulielmetti, for Respondents-Respondents-Appellants.
SULLIVAN, P.J., NARDELLI, TOM, WALLACH, SAXE, JJ.
Petitioner's claim that respondents should be evicted for profiteering was properly rejected on the ground that the summer subletting complained of did not rise to a level of profiteering warranting termination of respondents' 20-year tenancy without giving them an opportunity to cure (see, Alverjan v. Weiss Holding Corp., NYLJ, May 19, 1994, at 27, col 4, distinguishingContinental Towers Ltd. Partnership v. Freuman, 128 Misc.2d 680). Indeed, in response to a notice to cure that petitioner initially deemed necessary to serve but now claims was not, respondents promptly refunded all sums to the subtenants and notified petitioner of the cure prior to the commencement of holdover proceedings (see, Husda Realty Corp. v. Padien, 136 Misc.2d 92, distinguishing Continental Towers Ltd. Partnership v. Freuman,supra).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.