Metz v. Duenas

LISA SIANO, J. After the commencement of this proceeding by service of the notice of petition and petition, respondent served a written motion to dismiss on various grounds set forth in CPLR 3211, to indicate that an actual rent demand was made, the months for which rent was demanded or the amount of said demand. At the conclusion of petitioners' case, respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that discussions of rent, and failure to specify the months covered by the demand or the amount due are insufficient rent demands. The petition herein must fail. Petitioner did not provide proof of compliance with RPAPL 711, which requires a clear and unequivocal demand for rent in a specified amount. (Matter of Pepe v Miller & Miller Consulting Actuaries, 221 AD2d 545 [2d Dept 1995].) Here, petitioner furnished a rent demand which did not specify what months for which rent was due or a specific amount. Petitioners knew respondent did not understand English. The rent demand given could not provide respondent with the requisite notice pursuant to RPAPL 711. Petitioner did not introduce any competent proof that a clear and unequivocal rent demand was made to respondent in Spanish. Where the tenant speaks only a language other than the language in which the rent demand is made, the requisite notice to comply with RPAPL 711 has not been furnished. To hold otherwise would deprive tenants of actual notice that a rent demand has been made, and would thwart the clear purpose of the notice provisions of the statute. A landlord may not bring a summary proceeding which may result in the eviction of a tenant from their home without strict compliance with the notice provisions of the statute. Accordingly, the petition herein is dismissed.