Perle v. Ross, 150 Misc. 2d 20 (N.Y. App. Term. 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Perle v. Ross, 150 Misc. 2d 20 (N.Y. App. Term. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ditmas Flats, LLC v. Perez (nyappterm, 2025-05-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ditmas Flats, LLC v. Perez
N.Y. App. Term. · 2025 · confidence medium
RE Holdings LLC v McGowan , 57 Misc 3d 155[A] , 2017 NY Slip Op 51623[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2017]; Amin Mgt LLC v Martinez , 55 Misc 3d 144[A] , 2017 NY Slip Op 50664[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2017]; 1346 Park Place HDFC v Wright , 52 Misc 3d 18, 22 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]; Perle v Ross , 150 Misc 2d 20, 21 [App Term, 1st Dept 1991]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bellstell 140 East 56th Street, L. L. C. v. Layton
N.Y. City Civ. Ct. · 1999 · confidence medium
Fund Corp. v Blackmon, NYLJ, Jan. 30, 1996, at 25, col 2 [App Term, 1st Dept] [predicate notice deemed sufficient where it alleged that the tenant “sublet( ) (the apartment) to other named persons without prior consent” of the landlord]; Perle v Ross, 150 Misc 2d 20, 21 [App Term, 1st Dept] [predicate notice deemed sufficient where it alleged that the tenant “subletO and/or assign(ed) the premises without permission to ‘third persons, to wit: Vernau Edwards’”].) Those facts clearly tend to establish the ground for the holdover petition — which is all the petitioner is required to…
Bendet Perle, Doing Business as B.M.I. Realty Co.
v.
Nancy Ross
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York.
Jun 27, 1991.
150 Misc. 2d 20
1991 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 553
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Alan J. Goldberg (Joseph P. Monteleone of counsel), for appellant. Arthur R. Block for Nancy Ross, respondent.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered March 26, 1990 reversed, with $10 costs, the[*21] motion to dismiss the petition is denied, and a new trial is ordered.

At the conclusion of landlord’s prima facie case, the Housing Court dismissed the holdover proceeding upon the ground that the notice to cure, incorporated by reference in the notice of termination, was defective in that it failed to provide the name of the proper undertenant.* The notice in question alleged that tenant had violated a substantial obligation of her tenancy by subletting and/or assigning the premises without permission "to third persons, to wit: Vernau Edwards a/k/a 'Jane Doe’ and 'John Doe’ ”. We construe this notice as sufficient to apprise tenant of the condition which landlord wished to have cured, namely, the removal of any occupants in possession as illegal subtenants or assignees (cf., Chinatown Apts. v Chu Cho Lam, 51 NY2d 786). The fact that the notice specifically designated one undertenant whom landlord had reason to believe was in possession, and failed to specifically identify another undertenant, did not render the threshold notice impermissibly vague. This is particularly so in circumstances where different individuals were apparently residing in the apartment premises at different times. The tenant was on notice of the nature of the conduct complained of, so as to cure within the prescribed 10-day period.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss at the close of landlord’s case should have been denied. The petition is reinstated and a new trial is ordered.

Ostrau, P. J., Parness and Miller, JJ., concur.

A pretrial dismissal motion addressed to the sufficiency of the notice had previously been denied by Civil Court.