Legal Opinion
W54-7 LLC v. Schick
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Decided December 14, 2006PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
2Per curiam
Order, entered June 30, 2005, affirmed, with $10 costs.
Tenant’s pretrial motion to dismiss the holdover petition was properly granted, there being no serious dispute that landlord’s service by mail of the 10-day notice to cure was untimely under the rule enunciated in Matter of ATM One v Landaverde (2 NY3d 472 [2004]). Compliance with statutory notice requirements represents a condition precedent to maintenance of a summary eviction proceeding (see 170 W. 85th St. Tenants Assn. v Cruz, 173 AD2d 338, 339 [1991]), and the burden remains with the landlord to prove that…
3Cases cited2 opinions
- ATM One, LLC v. LandaverdeNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
- 170 West 85th Street Tenants Ass'n v. CruzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
4Cited by5 opinions
- First National Bank of Chicago v. SilverAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Bank of America, N.A. v. OwensRochester City Court · 2010
- Mautner-Glick Corp. v. GlazerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- 47-05 Ctr. SPE L.L.C. v. Hack, Civil Court Of The City Of New York, Queens County2025
- Rahman v. Lewis, Civil Court Of The City Of New York, Bronx County2024