Great Jones St. Realty Corp. v. Chimsanthia

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Great Jones St. Realty Corp. v. Chimsanthia

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 13, 2020

Docket2020 NYSlipOp 50547(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Great Jones St. Realty Corp. v. Chimsanthia (Great Jones St. Realty Corp. v. Chimsanthia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Great Jones St. Realty Corp. v. Chimsanthia, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

<div align="center">Great Jones St. Realty Corp., Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant,

against Nittaya Chimsanthia, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent, -and- "John Doe", "Jane Doe," Respondents-Undertenants.</div>

Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Clifton A. Nembhard, J.), entered July 23, 2019, which granted respondent Nittaya Chimsanthia's motion to dismiss the petition and denied, as moot, landlord's cross-motion for summary judgment in a licensee holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Clifton A. Nembhard, J.), entered July 23, 2019, reversed, with $10 costs, respondent Chimsanthia's motion denied, petition reinstated, and the matter remanded to Civil Court for a determination of petitioner's cross motion on the merits.

Respondent's motion to dismiss the holdover petition should have been denied. In evaluating the facial sufficiency of a predicate notice in a summary eviction proceeding, the appropriate test is one of reasonableness in view of attendant circumstances (see Hughes v Lenox Hill Hosp., 226 AD2d 4, 18 [1996], lv denied 90 NY2d 829 [1997]). Measured against the test of reasonableness, the notice to quit used here was facially sufficient, as it fairly stated the nature of petitioner's claim and the facts necessary to establish the existence of grounds for eviction. The misstatement in the notice concerning petitioner's name "could not have materially misled or confused the [respondent] or hindered the preparation of h[er] defense" (Oxford Towers Co., LLC v Leites, 41 AD3d 144, 145 [2007]; see Kips Bay Joint Venture Assoc. v Pashazadeh, 2001 NY Slip Op 40302[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2001]; see also CPLR 2001).

In light of this determination, the denial as moot of petitioner's motion for summary [*2]judgment must be reversed and the motion remanded for a determination on the merits.

All concur.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Clerk of the Court

Decision Date: May 13, 2020

</form>

</div>

</partyblock>

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

<div align="center">Great Jones St. Realty Corp., Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant,

against Nittaya Chimsanthia, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent, -and- "John Doe", "Jane Doe," Respondents-Undertenants.</div>

Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Clifton A. Nembhard, J.), entered July 23, 2019, which granted respondent Nittaya Chimsanthia's motion to dismiss the petition and denied, as moot, landlord's cross-motion for summary judgment in a licensee holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Clifton A. Nembhard, J.), entered July 23, 2019, reversed, with $10 costs, respondent Chimsanthia's motion denied, petition reinstated, and the matter remanded to Civil Court for a determination of petitioner's cross motion on the merits.

Respondent's motion to dismiss the holdover petition should have been denied. In evaluating the facial sufficiency of a predicate notice in a summary eviction proceeding, the appropriate test is one of reasonableness in view of attendant circumstances (see Hughes v Lenox Hill Hosp., 226 AD2d 4, 18 [1996], lv denied 90 NY2d 829 [1997]). Measured against the test of reasonableness, the notice to quit used here was facially sufficient, as it fairly stated the nature of petitioner's claim and the facts necessary to establish the existence of grounds for eviction. The misstatement in the notice concerning petitioner's name "could not have materially misled or confused the [respondent] or hindered the preparation of h[er] defense" (Oxford Towers Co., LLC v Leites, 41 AD3d 144, 145 [2007]; see Kips Bay Joint Venture Assoc. v Pashazadeh, 2001 NY Slip Op 40302[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2001]; see also CPLR 2001).

In light of this determination, the denial as moot of petitioner's motion for summary [*2]judgment must be reversed and the motion remanded for a determination on the merits.

All concur.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Clerk of the Court

Decision Date: May 13, 2020

</form>

</div>

</partyblock>

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Great Jones St. Realty Corp. v. Chimsanthia, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/great-jones-st-realty-corp-v-chimsanthia-nyappterm-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack