Wagab LLC v Medina

Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County

Decided on March 30, 2026

Index No. LT-303757-25/QU

Jordan M. Dressler, J.

Background

Petitioner Wagab LLC commenced this holdover proceeding seeking possession of the subject premises on the grounds that Respondents' lease had expired and would not be renewed due to Respondent's failure to pay rent. Prior to commencement, Petitioner served a 60-day Notice of Termination and Non-Renewal of Tenancy in which it indicates that it declined to renew Respondent's oral lease. Petitioner also served a Good Cause Eviction Law (GCEL) Notice indicating that the subject premises is subject to GCEL and that Petitioner's "good cause" for not renewing Respondent's lease is failure to pay rent due and owing. The notices lacked any further detail regarding the alleged nonpayment, such as the amount unpaid or when such rents came due.

Thereafter, Petitioner commenced the instant proceeding. The Petition stated that "The subject premises is not subject the Good Cause Eviction Statute, because the tenant failed to pay [*2]rent due and owing," but lacked any detail regarding the alleged failure to pay rent, such as the amount unpaid or when such rents came due.

Respondent Suany Bedoya moved to dismiss the proceeding pursuant to CPLR §§ 3211(a)(1), (a)(7), and (c) arguing that the predicate notice is defective for failing to (1) state that nonpayment is the basis of eviction; (2) disclose the amount of rent owed; and (3) state that Respondent can pay what is owed to avoid eviction. Respondent also asserts that the Petition is defective for (1) stating that the apartment is not subject to the GCEL because Respondent failed to pay rent and (2) failing to disclose the amount of rent owed. Lastly, Respondent asserts that Petitioner has refused to accept rent payments during the pendency of the proceeding, frustrating Respondent's efforts to "cure" her failure in paying rent, providing copies of text message exchanges between Petitioner and Respondent which Respondent argues reflect Respondent's efforts to pay rent and Petitioner's refusal to accept it.

Petitioner opposes dismissal, contending that the predicate termination and GCEL notice together give Respondent sufficient notice of the grounds for termination and state a valid cause of action. Petitioner argues that, as this is a holdover proceeding under RPL § 216(1)(a) where nonpayment is alleged as good cause for lease nonrenewal and termination of the tenancy, an itemized rent breakdown or a cure opportunity are not required.

In reply, Respondent contends that the termination notice does not sufficiently apprise Respondent with the basis of the proceeding or include supporting facts in a manner that is reasonable under the attendant circumstances as it lacks the specific amount owed in rent, and that Petitioner had not provided Respondent with a rental breakdown since the commencement of the proceeding.

In response to Respondent's reply, Petitioner submitted a letter to the Court arguing that Respondent had raised new factual assertions in the reply in purportedly arguing that Petitioner had refused to provide rental breakdowns to Respondent. Petitioner included with the letter copies of undated text message exchanges in which rents are discussed, as well as a copy of a rental breakdown dated February 18, 2025, a date falling between the service of the notice of termination and nonrenewal on December 17, 2024 and the filing of the petition in this proceeding on March 5, 2025, which Respondent indicates was provided to Respondent "before and after commencement."

On July 24, 2025, the Court marked the motion as fully submitted and reserved decision.

Discussion

Respondent moves to dismiss under CPLR § 3211(a)(1) (defense based on documentary evidence) and CPLR § 3211(a)(7) (failure to state a claim) on three distinct but related grounds. The first two grounds are closely related as they both are premised on Petitioner's failure to serve on Respondent as part of this proceeding a detailed accounting and timeline for the rents owed by Respondent, first with Petitioner's notice of termination and non-renewal of lease, and then within the petition. The third ground is, in essence, Petitioner's failure to permit Respondent to pay rent owed which, Respondent argues, obstructs Respondent's "right" to eliminate the "good cause" for eviction, which Respondent argues ensued from Petitioner's failure to include details on the rent owed along with the notices and petition and from Petitioner's refusal to accept rent after termination of the tenancy and continuing after commencement of the proceeding.

The Court first considers Respondent's motion under CPLR § 3211(a)(1) as Respondent's [*3]first argument rises or falls on the legal sufficiency of the notices served on Respondent as predicates to this proceeding. A motion under CPLR § 3211(a)(1) "may be appropriately granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law." Sander v Westchester Reform Temple, 2025 NY Slip Op 06958 (2025), quoting Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of NY, 98 NY2d 314, 326 (2002). The test for determining the sufficiency of a termination notice is whether it is "reasonable in view of the attendant circumstances." Brooklyn Home for Aged People Housing Development Fund Co. v Selby, 32 Misc 3d 130(A) (App Term 2nd 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011). A notice to terminate a tenancy must contain specific and unambiguous language and a defective predicate notice requires dismissal. Chinatown Apartments, Inc. v Chu Cho Lam, 51 NY2d 786 (1980). Otherwise, "for all practical purposes, [it would] eviscerate the plain language of the governing notice regulation and undermine its salutary purpose to discourage baseless eviction claims founded upon speculation and surmise, rather than concrete facts." London Terrace Gardens, LP v Heller, 40 Misc 3d 135(A) (App Term 1st Dept 2009). See also Domen Holding Co. v Aranovich, 1 NY3d 117, 124 (2003) (notice of termination is sufficient where it sets forth ground for eviction nuisance "and sets forth the facts necessary to establish that ground").

While a predicate notice need not lay bare a landlord's proof at trial (McGoldrick v DeCruz, 195 Misc 2d 414, 415-416 [1st Dept 2003], quoting Rascoff/Zsyblat Org., Inc. v Directors Guild of Am., Inc., 297 AD2d 241, 242 [1st Dept 2002]), detailed allegations beyond an unelaborated assertion of "nonpayment" or "failure to pay" are required in order for the notice of termination to be sufficient. See RP Wimbledon Owner, LLC v Chisholm, 86 Misc 3d 1075 (Civ Ct Kings Cty 2025) (when nonpayment of rent is the asserted good cause for termination predicate notice must state the months and amounts unpaid); see also Westhampton Cabins & Cabanas Owners Corp. v Westhampton Bath & Tennis Club Owners Corp., 62 AD3d 987, 988 (2d Dept 2009) (in commercial holdover context, notice to cure which included specific rents owed, dates when rents came due, and deadlines for payments was not ground for dismissal).

Here, the predicate notice of nonrenewal and termination is devoid of any detail as to the scale, history, or present status of Respondent's "failure to pay rent due and owing" as alleged by Petitioner in the GCEL notices and Petition. As a result, Respondent was left without any specific notion of what Petitioner will seek to prove at trial to demonstrate the existence of "good cause" for tenant's termination under the GCEL. RPL § 216 (1) ("good cause" must be "established" by the petitioner in "a court of competent jurisdiction"). The predicate notice at issue here is bereft of facts and as such is ambiguous and unspecific. A failure to provide details of the alleged failure to pay with the notice of termination, for example by inclusion of a rent ledger reflecting such failures and when they occurred, withholds from a tenant the ability to assess whether and how they may defend the case by arguing that there was no "good cause" to terminate the tenancy, for just two possible examples, by presenting proof that payment of specific rents which the landlord claims were unpaid had in fact been paid or that the lease agreement between the parties required rent payments different from those claimed by the landlord.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the predicate notice of nonrenewal of lease and termination is defective as a matter of law and dismisses the petition without prejudice pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(1). The Court consequently does not reach or decide Respondent's other asserted grounds for dismissal.

[*4]Conclusion

Based on the foregoing it is ORDERED that the petition is dismissed without prejudice. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

Dated: March 30, 2026

Jamaica, NY

HON. JORDAN M. DRESSLER

Judge, Housing Court