Case Law Summaries

Sciarra v. Santiago

• Opinion Date: June 26, 2001
• Real Property Law
• E-Mail

LANDLORD-TENANT; EVICTION—It is not equitable to evict a residential tenant where a relatively minor lease violation is promptly cured after receipt of a notice to quit.

A multi-unit apartment landlord sought to evict a tenant. The tenant’s lease prohibited pets. The landlord observed a puppy in the tenant’s apartment. The dog did not belong to the tenant, but was apparently brought to the apartment by the tenant’s daughter, a non-resident. A notice to cease was issued. Less than a month later, the landlord again saw the puppy on the premises. It then served a notice to quit four days thereafter, terminating the lease’s 30 days notice. The tenant’s daughter clearly surrendered the puppy two weeks before the date stated in the notice to quit. The lower court ordered eviction, holding that the tenant’s attempt to cure the violation was ineffective because the surrender of the dog took place after the notice to quit was served. The Appellate Division refused to decide “the broad question whether, in all circumstances, a tenant may defeat a summary dispossess action by curing a prior violation of a lease term before the filing of a complaint. The tenant’s misconduct may be so egregious as to disallow a purported cure in a given set of circumstances.” Here, however, the Court vacated the judgment of possession because the original violation was relatively minor and was corrected shortly after the notice to quit was served. It also felt that the landlord was not prejudiced and that this was the only such event of misconduct committed by the tenant. Further, the landlord apparently showed no interest in protecting its interest in the appeal. All in all, the Court felt that it was “no longer equitable” that the landlord be given prospective relief.

Copyright ©2003. Meislik & Meislik. All rights reserved.