Case Type

Holdover-Nuisance

Housing Type

Rent Stabilized

Court

Civil Court of the City of New York

County

New York County (Manhattan)

L&T / Index / Case / Docket / Clerk's Number

LT-306512-25/NY

Petitioner

BPC ASSOCIATES LP

Respondent

YAKIK RUMLEY, “JOHN DOE” and “JANE DOE”

Judge

Meyers, Adam R.

Decision/Order Date

2025-10-20

Posture

Post-answer Motion by Landlord

Disposition

Other

Winner

Other

Synopsis

In this nuisance holdover proceeding, the landlord moved to strike several of the tenant's objections and affirmative defenses. The court denied striking the tenant's service-related objections, finding that afternoon/evening service attempts might not constitute "reasonable application" if the landlord knew of the tenant's schedule. It also preserved the tenant's defense that a recertification notice could imply waiver and the possibility of a post-judgment right to cure nuisance, citing equitable factors. However, the court granted striking objections that the termination notice was vague and that a notice to cure was required, holding that the notice adequately described the alleged conditions and that nuisance claims under 9 NYCRR § 2524.3(b) do not require a notice to cure.

Keywords

Nuisance Holdover; RPAPL § 735; CPLR 3211[b] Motion to Strike Defenses – Reasonable Application – LIHTC Recertification as Vitiation of Termination – RPAPL 753[4] – Post-Judgment Right To Cure Nuisance

Share

COinS