The following papers were read on this motion:

Notice of Motion to Dismiss and Affirmation Annexed1, 2-5

Affirmation in Opposition6-9

Affirmation in Reply10-12

In this summary holdover proceeding, respondent moves for dismissal pursuant to CPLR �3211, based upon an alleged faulty predicate 30 day notice. Respondent argues that the 30 day notice to quit was defective, insofar as it was signed by petitioner's counsel without a separate authorization executed and served contemporaneously with the notice to quit, delineating the attorney's authority to issue the notice on behalf of the petitioner. Petitioner opposes the motion.

DISCUSSION

Respondent argues that the rule enunciated in Siegel v Kentucky Fried Chicken, 108 AD2d 218(2d Dept 1985), affd 67 NY2d 792 (1986), ("KFC Rule"), governs the instant case; however, the Court finds that respondent's reliance on Siegel is misplaced. Siegel involved a lease and a notice to cure signed by the landlord's attorney. Id. The Court relied heavily on the fact that there was a lease between the parties and noted that

"where, as here, the lease provides that certain of the rights and immunities arising [*2]thereunder may be exercised and enjoyed by either the Landlord or Landlord's agents', and where it elsewhere designates a named third party, . . . it appears only reasonable that a forfeiture provision calling for cancellation of the lease upon only three days' written notice emanating specifically from the Landlord' . . . should be strictly construed against the drawer to require unequivocal notice by either the landlord himself or his authorized agent, accompanied by proof of the latter's authority . . . ." Siegel,108 AD2d at 221.

However, there is no lease in the instant case because the underlying landlord-tenant relationship is a verbal month to month tenancy. Therefore, the rule enunciated in Siegel is not applicable herein; there is no basis to extend the application of the "KFC Rule" to include a landlord-tenant relationship in the absence of a written lease as in the instant case. As the Court in Tuckahoe Housing Authority v Logan, 33 Misc 3d 1222(A), 2011 NY Slip Op 52052(U)(Tuckahoe Just Ct 2011), noted when it denied a motion to dismiss based on the identical argumentas proffered by respondent herein:

[Siegel] holds that when a lease requires that a landlord sign a particular document, an attorney cannot substitute for the landlord in signing the document. No such lease provision is alleged here. Absent such a provision, outside New York City there is no requirement that the notification specifically be signed by the landlord, only that notice be given, as it was here. Real Property Law § 232-b.

Moreover, the Court hereby finds that the notice of termination herein is valid.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court hereby denies respondent's motion to dismiss. The instant matter is restored to the Court's calendar on June 28, 2013 at 9:30 a.m.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated: June 13, 2013

New Rochelle, New York

Hon. Susan I. Kettner

City Court Judge