Decision below. Note that the Supreme Court in New York is actually the trial (i.e. lowest) court.
It was very obvious we were going to win- the court had already decided the same exact case multiple times in our favor. But it’s still nice to see it in print.
Decided on May 23, 2007
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., McCooe, Davis JJ
570139/07.Morton M. Hirsch, Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant,
against
Elaine Stewart, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent,
Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Maria Milin, J.), dated May 17, 2006, which granted tenant’s motion to dismiss the holdover petition.
Order (Maria Milin, J.), dated May 17, 2006, affirmed, with $10 costs.
The underlying notice of nonrenewal, containing conclusory allegations concerning the landlord’s intention to primarily reside in the subject apartment upon tenant’s surrender, was insufficient to serve as a predicate for the within owner occupancy proceeding. Landlord’s notice failed to comply with the specificity requirements of Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2524.2(b), since it merely “tracked the statutory language for nonrenewal upon the ground of owner occupancy … without setting forth allegations fact specific to this proceeding” (Numano v Vicario, 165 Misc 2d 457 [1995]; see also Berkeley Assoc. Co. v Camlakides, 176 AD2d 193 [1991], affd 78 NY2d 1098 [199]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
