Posted by Mark Smith on May 29, 2000 at 19:37:18:
In Reply to: Housing Court Decisions - Erroneous Notes By Attorney Summarizing The Case posted by Mark Smith on May 28, 2000 at 08:00:45:
Today I received this e-mail from Colleen F. McGuire, the chief editor of Housing Court Decisions:
"I wrote the Notes for the Deptula case which you wrote to Tenant.Net about. I disagree with you about serving a new nonrenewal notice. The 120-150 days to have served a nonrenewal notice would have expired by the time this case got to court since the case cannot get to court until after the end of the renewal lease term. Therefore, a second Golub notice would perforce be untimely. If I am missing your point, please clarify it, but I believe I am correct (but willing to listen to your position further). Thank you for your inquiry."
Frankly, I find Ms. McGuire's e-mail totally incomprehensible. My point in starting this discussion was that the holdover summary proceeding was dismissed (without prejudice) because the COURT papers were served late by the landlord. There is nothing to prevent the landlord from immediately commencing a new holdover summary proceeding against the tenant, based on the original Golub Notice and any other original required notices.
The court's decision doesn't mention if the Golub Notice and any other notices were adequate in content and were properly and timely served. If they were, I see no reason why the landlord can't commence a new holdover summary proceeding.
If one or more of the predicate notices weren't proper in content or weren't properly or timely served, then the landlord would have to renew the lease and wait for the new window period near the end of the renewal lease before it could serve a new Golub Notice and any other required notices.
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup