Court rules on mailing time for 'Golub' notice.

Judge Kevin C. McClanahan of the Civil Court of the City of New York has ruled that the "Landaverde" holding, which requires property owners to add five days when serving notices to cure to tenants by mail, does not apply to service of the "Golub Notice."

The ruling distinguishes a recent Court of Appeals decision, ATM One, LLC v. Landaverde, which held that property owners who serve notices to cure by mail pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Code must add five days for mailing when calculating the expiration date of the notice. This holding was followed by the Civil Court and its principles were applied to other notices served under the Rent Stabilization Code.

Rosenberg & Estis, PC represented the petitioner, K.S.L.M. Columbus Apartments Inc., which served a Golub Notice without the additional five days for mailing. The tenant in the case argued that this rendered the notice defective under the Landaverde rule. Michael A. Pensabene of Rosenberg & Estis argued that the tenant had received adequate notice regardless of the additional five-day mailing period and that the Landaverde rule was not applicable to a notice of non-renewal of lease in a non-primary residence hold-over proceeding.

This was the first case in which this argument was made for service of a notice of non-renewal of lease. The Civil Court found for the petitioner on both arguments, limiting the scope of Landaverde to notices to cure and notices of termination.

"This is an extremely important decision as the Civil Court declined to follow the 'Landaverde' rule, based on both the facts of the case and the law, recognizing that there are fundamental differences between notices to cure and notices of termination, and "Golub" notices, which were not addressed by the Court of Appeals holding in 'Landaverde'" said Pensabene. "The decision is particularly noteworthy for owners because, if service of a Golub Notice on a rent-stabilized tenant is defective, the proceeding is dismissed and the property owner is precluded from bringing another proceeding until the next lease expires--two years in many cases."

In his ruling, Judge McClanahan drew a distinction between the Landaverde rule, which applies to notices to cure and notices of termination, and the Golub Notice, which applies to the owner's intention not to offer a renewal lease.

Judge McClanahan said that with the Landaverde rule:

"... the central concern was that tenants receive the benefit of the cure period and not be disadvantaged by the service method, which could result in inadvertent forfeiture of their regulated tenancies. The question before the Court is whether the holding of Landaverde should be expanded to apply to service of the Golub Notice. The Court finds that it does not."