It has often been said that a Golub Notice – that is, a notice of intention not to renew a rent-stabilized lease – must recite the facts necessary to establish the existence of the claim. See NYCRR ยง 2524.2(b) (NYC RSC). In a nonprimary residence holdover, tenants are often able to get their eviction proceedings dismissed on the grounds that the Golub notice is not specific enough. The courts have struggled to define and interpret this rule.
For example, the First Department in Berkeley Associates Co. v. Camlakides (NYU 2/15/90, 26:4 [App. Tm. 1st Dept.], aff’d, 173 A.D.2d 193, 569 N.Y.S.2d 629 [1st Dep't 1991], aff’d, 78 N.Y.2d 1098, 578 N.Y.S.2d 872, 586 N.E.2d 55 [1991]) held that a statement in a Golub notice that “you do not occupy the premises as your primary residence” is just a legal conclusion, not a fact. Thus, the bare accusation that you do not live in your premises as your primary residence – without more detail – warrants the dismissal of a nonprimary residence case.
Similarly, several housing courts have found that in situations where there is nothing in the landlord’s Golub notice other than “the bare, unsupported legal conclusion that the premises are not being used as a primary residence,” the notice fails to provide sufficient facts to support a nonprimary residence proceeding. Rose Associates v. Bernstein, 138 Misc. 2d 1044, 526 N.Y.S.2d 383 (City Civ. Ct. 1988); Ohayon v. Rosenberg, NYU 9/5/90, 19:2 (Civ. Ct. NY County); 85th St Properties v. Rollins, NYU 4/16/90, 27:4 (Sup. Ct. NY County). See also Sullivan Properties, LP v. Sanabria, NYU 8/8/90, 18:5 (Civ. Ct. NY County).