90 William Street Development Group, LLC v. Oshman & Mirisola, LLP, et al.
June 28, 2010
(Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 11/25/05)
Respondent’s objection to the timeliness of a notice to cure based on its contention that petitioner was required under the Court of Appeals case ATM One LLC v. Landaverde to add five days for mailing, was rejected by the court. Landaverde cannot be read to apply to a commercial landlord-tenant proceeding where the lease is absolutely specific as to the service requirements for the notice to cure, to wit: where the lease provides that the notice will be deemed to have been given on the date when it shall have been mailed. Thus, tenant was given more than the full cure period it bargained for when it agreed to the terms of the lease. Also, the notice was served upon the correct party, although such party may have assigned the lease, because Landlord gave no consent to such assignment as required by the lease. Thus Tenant’s motion to dismiss was denied. Link to Full Text of Decision
