Nikolaos Preponis, Of Counsel at KMWB, successfully defended the validity of a non-primary residence holdover involving a corporate tenant after the Respondent submitted a motion to dismiss the proceeding. In their motion, the Respondent claimed that the Notice of Non-Renewal was fatally defective because one of the occupants of the subject apartment was not named in the Notice.
In his opposition papers, Mr. Preponis argued that the Respondent’s claim was bereft of any merit. He maintained that the only tenant listed on the original lease no longer resided in the subject apartment. Additionally, he argued that because the occupant in question was not listed on the original lease or rider, she was not a necessary party that was required to be named in the Notice. Mr. Preponis rejected the idea that the preliminary notice was defective and asked the Court to deny the Respondent’s motion in its entirety.
In their recent decision, the Court denied the Respondent’s motion to dismiss the proceeding. The Court further found that the Notice of Non-Renewal contained all of the information required by law and was therefore a valid Notice of Non-Renewal based upon non-primary residence grounds.