[*1]
Vil. of Rockville Ctr. Hous. Auth. v Shamosh
2007 NY Slip Op 50470(U) [15 Misc 3d 1103(A)]
Decided on March 14, 2007
Nassau Dist Ct
Fairgrieve, J.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on March 14, 2007
Nassau Dist Ct


Village of Rockville Centre Housing Authority, Petitioner

against

Sharon L. Shamosh, Janice L. Romano, Respondent(s)




SP 6491/06



REPRESENTATION:

Michael Wigutow, Esq., Of Counsel to Jeffrey A. Seigel, Esq., Nassau/Suffolk Law Services, Committee Inc., attorneys for Respondents, One Helen Keller Way, 5th Floor, Hempstead, New York 11550, 516-292-8100; Ezratty, Ezratty & Levine, LLP, attorneys for Petitioner, 80 E. Old Country Road, Westbury, New York 11590-3202, 516-747-5566.

Scott Fairgrieve, J.



Petitioner Village of Rockville Centre Housing Authority commenced this holdover proceeding against respondents Sharon L. Shamosh and Janice Romano. Petitioner, a governmental housing agency, served a notice of termination on respondents citing "substantial and serious violations of the lease including prohibitions on possessing illegal weapons . . . and criminal or improper activity . . . which threaten the health and safety of other community residents." The issue before the Court is whether the notice of termination of the lease referring to nothing more than "substantial and serious violations" sufficiently and specifically informed the tenants of the grounds for termination.

Termination notices served upon governmental housing tenants must refer to the statutory grounds for termination, facts establishing the existence of such ground, and date upon which the tenant is required to surrender possession of the premises to the landlord. Chinatown Apartments, Inc. v. Chu Cho Lan, 51 NY2d 786, 412 NE2d 1312 (1980) (landlord's notice of intention to terminate occupancy citing the unauthorized erection of a "partition" was fatally deficient where it did not cite any specific prohibition in the lease which had been violated); City of NY v. Valera, 216 AD2d 237, 628 NYS2d 695 (1995) (termination notice served on month-to-month tenants of governmental housing alleging that "premises were being used for illegal drug transactions and loitering, which constituted a threat to the safety and well-being of other occupants of the buildings" [*2][*3]was sufficient and further information could be acquired through a bill of particulars); Landlord and Tenant Practice in New York 13:20.

See also, Black Veterans For Social Justice v. Killeen, NYLJ, March 14, 2007, p18 col 1, holding that the termination notice was insufficient and required dismissal of the summary proceeding.

In the instant case, petitioner merely offers "substantial and serious violations," which failed to cite violation of a specific prohibition in the lease or provide any facts leading to the grounds for termination. As petitioner's notice does not meet threshold requirements for sufficiency and specificity, the notice of termination of tenancy is insufficient. Therefore, respondent's motion to dismiss is granted.

So Ordered:

/s/

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Dated:March 14, 2007

CC:Nassau/Suffolk Law Services Committee, Inc.

Ezratty, Ezratty & Levine, LLP

SF/mp