ATM One, L.L.C. v. Landaverde, 2 N.Y.3d 472 (2004)
When a landlord serves a notice to cure by mail in a rent-stabilized tenancy, the 10-day cure period is calculated by adding five days to the minimum cure period to account for mailing time, ensuring the tenant has the full 10 days to cure.
Summary
This case addresses how to calculate the 10-day cure period when a landlord serves a notice to cure by mail in a rent-stabilized housing accommodation. The landlord, ATM One, served the tenant, Landaverde, with a notice to cure an alleged lease violation, providing only nine days to cure. The tenant moved to dismiss, arguing she didn’t receive the mandated 10-day cure period. The Court of Appeals held that landlords who serve notices to cure by mail must add five days to the 10-day minimum cure period, effectively deeming service complete upon mailing while ensuring tenants receive the full cure period mandated by the Emergency Tenant Protection Regulations.
Facts
The tenant leased a rent-stabilized one-bedroom apartment from the landlord. On September 8, 2000, the landlord served the tenant with a “Notice of Default; Ten Days’ Notice to Cure; Thirty Days’ Notice of Cancellation,” alleging overcrowding in violation of the lease. The notice was sent by certified and regular mail on September 8, 2000, setting a cure date of September 18, 2000. The tenant received the notice on September 9, 2000, providing only nine days to cure.
Procedural History
The landlord commenced a holdover proceeding against the tenant after the 30-day cancellation period expired. The tenant moved to dismiss, arguing she did not receive the required 10-day cure period. District Court dismissed the petition, borrowing from CPLR 2103 by requiring landlords to add five days for service by mail. Appellate Term affirmed, reasoning the purpose was to afford the tenant the full 10 days. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, defining service in terms of receipt. The Court of Appeals granted the landlord leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether, under the Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s Emergency Tenant Protection Regulations, the 10-day cure period is properly calculated from the date of mailing or the date of receipt of the notice to cure, when the notice is served by mail.
Holding
Yes, the 10-day cure period requires landlords serving by mail to add five days to the minimum cure period because this approach best effectuates the regulatory purpose of affording tenants a full 10-day cure period before lease termination.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that regulatory interpretation should align with legislative intent, examining the statute’s spirit and purpose. The Emergency Tenant Protection Act (ETPA) aimed to address housing shortages and prevent unjust rents. Because the regulations did not specify when service was complete for mailed notices, the Court looked to the underlying policies. The Court rejected the landlord’s argument that service was complete upon mailing, as this was inconsistent with providing tenants a 10-day opportunity to cure. It also rejected deeming service complete upon receipt because this would make it impossible for landlords to reliably compute the date certain. The court adopted District Court’s approach, holding that owners who serve by mail must add five days to the 10-day minimum cure period, consistent with CPLR 2103(b)(2). This ensures tenants receive the full 10-day cure period, balancing the need for efficient resolution of lease violations with the ETPA’s purpose. The Court stated, “[W]e therefore hold that owners who elect to serve by mail must compute the date certain by adding five days to the 10-day minimum cure period.” By requiring the additional five days, the Court ensured that tenants are not disadvantaged by the landlord’s choice of service method. A properly executed affidavit of service creates a presumption of proper mailing, rebuttable only by more than a denial of receipt. The Court encouraged DHCR to amend its regulations for clarity.