Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219(A), of the papers considered in the review of this Notice of Motion:

Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision/Order in this motion pursuant to CPLR §3211(a)(1), (a)(7), (a)(2) dismissing the Petitioner in the alternative permitting the Respondent to submit and Answer and for legal fees is as follows:

The Petitioner seeks a final judgment of possession of this Project Based Section 8 apartment. The premises are owned by an entity organized under Article XI of the Private Housing Finance Law and is subject to Section 236 of the National Housing Act under the jurisdiction of the NYS Housing Finance Agency. The Respondent and her husband, Victor Sembratovich, entered into a lease commencing June 1, 2013 for one year that would "continue for successive terms of one Year each unless automatically terminated as permitted by paragraph 23 of this agreement." See Petitioner's Exhibit A attached to the Affirmation In Opposition.

The Petitioner alleges in the Ten (10) Day Notice of Termination and Notice to Vacate that the Respondent has violated a substantial obligation of her tenancy which is intended to harass the owner/other tenants in violation of Paragraph 13(e) and Paragraph 14 of the lease which incorporates Attachment No. 3 of the lease. Paragraph 13(e) of the lease provides that the "Tenant agrees not to: make or permit noises or acts that will disturb the rights or comfort of neighbors. The Tenant agrees to keep the volume of any radio, phonograph, television or musical instrument at a level which will not disturb the neighbors." Paragraph 14 provides that the "Tenant agrees to obey the House Rules which are Attachment No. 3 to this Agreement." See Exhibit A to the Petitioner's Affirmation In Opposition. A further review of the Agreement explains that Attachment No. 3 is the House Rules (if any). See Id. at paragraph 27(c). Although not mentioned in the Notice of Termination, the Agreement, paragraph 27 (e) references "Any other attachments or riders which may be required by Landlord, its lenders or partners, or any governmental agency having jurisdiction over the Project." The Court notes this provision because the Petitioner's Opposition papers, Exhibit A, include a Pet Policy Rider. It is in that Rider that rules and obligations concerning pet ownership are discussed, including but not limited to the leashing, curbing and picking up after a pet. Said Rider is not referenced in the Notice of Termination or the Petition and Notice of Petition despite the fact that the conduct alleged in the Notices are discussed in the Pet Policy Rider.

The Rental Agreement provides the procedure for terminating a tenancy as follows:

2. Termination notice.

a. If the owner proposes to terminate a lease, the owner must give the tenant written notice of the proposed termination.

b. For tenants with a disability, the notice must be provided in a form accessible to the tenant (e.g., in Braille or audio form for a tenant with a vision impairment).

c. When an owner terminates tenancy, written notice must be provided to the tenant and must:

(1) State the specific date the tenancy will be terminated;

(2) State the reasons for the action with enough detail to enable the tenant to prepare a defense;

(3) Advise the tenant that remaining in the unit on the termination date specified in the notice may result in the owner seeking to enforce the termination in court, at which time the tenant may present a defense;

(4) Advise the tenant that he/she has 10 days within which to discuss termination of tenancy with the owner. The 10-day period begins on the day that the notice is deemed effective (see subparagraph B.3 below);

(5) Advise that persons with disabilities have the right to request reasonable accommodations to participate in the hearing process (see Chapter 2, Subsection 4 for information on Reasonable Accommodation).

The Respondent argues that the Petitioner has failed to comply with the Termination provisions of the rental agreement. Specifically, for not offering the Respondent an opportunity to cure and for non-compliance with paragraph 4 of the Agreement. The Petitioner denies that there was no opportunity to cure and refers to 4 duplicate letters that were sent to the Respondent dated June 12, 2015. See Respondent's Exhibit C to the Notice of Motion. These letters were not included in the pleadings originally filed with the court. Said letter recites in pertinent part, "Please be advised that the following lease violation(s) have been recorded in your resident record. The violations occurred on the following dates: 5/5/2015." Checked off on the form letter is "1. Destruction or defacing of property; 5. Illegal activity on the premises; 17. Harboring an animal without the Landlord's consent; 19. Compromising building security; 20. Other: Violation of house rules." In the Notes section it states "Upon receipt of this letter unauthorized pets (DOG) must be removed immediately. Please remove within 5 days in receipt of this letter. Failure to comply, Mgmt. will commence legal procedures. Further, you must contact Management in receipt of this letter to discuss at 516 277 9315." The Petitioner argues that even though the letter states that the cure must be immediate, the time lapse in commencing the proceeding provided for the requisite time as was required by the Rental Agreement. See Petitioner's Opposition paragraph 14.

The Court agrees with the arguments asserted by the Respondent. The Rental Agreement, paragraph 23(e), provides that the Petitioner must "(4) Advise the tenant that he/she has 10 days within which to discuss termination of tenancy with the owner. The 10-day period begins on the day that the notice is deemed effective (see subparagraph B.3 below)." The letters of June 12, 2015 do not advise the tenant that she had 10 days to discuss the termination. Further, the lease violations recited are not closely related to the allegations listed in the Notice of Termination. The Notice of Termination does not incorporate or mention the Notice to Cure letter nor do either Notices mention the Pet Policy Rider which is the document which actually covers the allegations in the Notice to Terminate. The letter claims a destruction or defacing of property which perhaps could be notice of the alleged damage to the stone walls. See Notice of Termination (d)(13). Additionally, the letter of June 12, 2015 states that the violations occurred [*3]on 5/5/2015, however, the Notice of Termination makes one allegation of a breach for that date. The Notice to Cure and the Notice of Termination do not relate to each other and do not fulfill the contractual requirements as established in the Rental Agreement.

Pursuant to the foregoing and the arguments presented in the Notice of Motion, the Petition is dismissed.