A New York commercial landlord sought to recover possession of the premises and $19,449 in rent. The rent demand served on the tenant was in the form of a letter from the landlord’s attorney which:

(a) did not state whether it was a three-day notice, a five-day notice, or something else;

(b) did not state that the rent must be paid by a certain date or within five days from the date of receipt;

(d) did not specify the actual amount of late fees per month and the time period to which this charge applies;

(e) states that if the money is not paid, the landlord will commence legal action to collect the money; and

(f) does not mention reclaiming possession of the premises, as later demanded in the eviction petition.

An eviction may be maintained if the tenant has defaulted in the payment of rent and a demand of rent has been served on at least three days’ notice in writing requiring either payment of the rent or the possession of the premises. The purpose of the demand is to give the tenant an opportunity to cure the alleged default by making a payment as well as to advise the tenant of the risk of forfeiture and eviction if the default is not cured. Proof of a proper demand for rent is a jurisdictional requirement to maintain a New York eviction action and failing to comply requires dismissal of the action.

The Nassau County, New York District Court agreed with the tenant’s contention that the rent demand was defective in several respects. The landlord did not comply with the form and content of a proper rent demand. The demand letter does not inform the tenant that in order to avoid further litigation the monies must be paid within five days, nor does it inform the tenant that an eviction action will be commenced to reclaim possession of the premises.

In addition, an attorney may not sign a rent demand on behalf of the client without prior disclosure of his or her authority to do so. The lease agreement required that default in the payment of any basic rent or additional rent to be cured within five (5) business days after mailing of written notice thereof by the landlord.

Where a lease provides for notice to be given by the landlord, a notice of termination signed by an agent, or by an attorney, who is not named in the lease, and which notice is not accompanied by proof of authority of the agent or the attorney to bind the landlord in giving the notice, may be disregarded by the tenant. Such a notice is insufficient.

There is no duty whatsoever on a tenant, upon receiving a notice of termination, to inquire as to the authority of the one giving the notice. Since the written lease contemplates notice being given by the landlord and no mention is made that the landlord’s attorney possesses the authority to serve the rent demand, the notice signed by the landlord’s attorney is void.