Yui Woon Kwong v. Sun Po Eng

As the majority memorandum notes, there is no written lease in this case. Respondent is a rent controlled tenant. From this and the fact that RPAPL 711 (2) does not require notice from the landlord personally, the majority herein and the Appellate Term distinguish Siegel v Kentucky Fried Chicken (108 AD2d 218, affd 67 NY2d 792) and come to the conclusion that the three-day demand notice given by the petitioners was not rendered legally defective because it was signed, not by the landlords, but by their attorney.

However, I believe that they misinterpret both Siegel v Kentucky Fried Chicken…