Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Oymin Chin, J.), dated September 26, 2007. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied tenant's motion to dismiss the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.

Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed without costs.

The combined 30-day and 90/150-day notice (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2524.2 [c] [2]; § 2524.4 [c]) served by landlord as a predicate to commencing this nonprimary-residence holdover proceeding sufficiently set forth case-specific facts, including tenant's alleged representations on government forms and to credit card companies that she primarily resided at an address in Connecticut (Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2524.2 [b]; see Berkeley Assoc. Co. v Camlakides, 173 AD2d 193 [1991], affd 78 NY2d 1098 [1991]; Mak v Yun Pan Lee, 12 Misc 3d 142[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51408[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2006]). Contrary to tenant's claims, the notice also adequately informed tenant that her lease would not be renewed and that landlord would commence a proceeding to recover possession of the premises upon the ground of nonprimary residence if tenant failed to vacate by the required date (Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2524.4 [c]). Consequently, the notice was reasonable in light of the attendant circumstances (see Oxford Towers Co. v Leites, 41 AD3d 144 [2007]; Hughes v Lenox Hill Hosp., 226 AD2d 4, 18 [1996]).

Accordingly, tenant's motion to dismiss the petition was properly denied.

Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.

Weston Patterson, J.P., taking no part.
Decision Date: December 03, 2008