Respondents-appellants appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), dated November 1, 2016, which denied their preanswer motion to dismiss the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), dated November 1, 2016, affirmed, without costs.

Civil Court properly denied respondents-appellants' preanswer motion to dismiss the holdover petition pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). Accepting petitioner-landlord's allegations as true, and according them the benefit of every favorable inference (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87—88 [1994]), the petition states a cause of action for possession based upon the rent stabilized tenant's assignment or sublet of the premises without permission (see Real Property Law §§ 226-b[5]; Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] 2525.6(f)).

The notice to cure, which was incorporated by reference in the notice of termination, was reasonable in view of the attendant circumstances, as it fairly stated the nature of petitioner landlord's claim and the facts necessary to establish the existence of grounds for eviction (see Oxford Towers Co., LLC v Leites, 41 AD3d 144, 144-145 [2007]). Contrary to respondents' claims, an undertenant, whether licensee, subtenant or occupant, need not be served with the prescribed notices (see 1700 First Ave. LLC v Parsons-Novak, 46 Misc 3d 30 [2014]; 149th Partners LP v Watts, 49 Misc 3d 139[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51576[U] [App Term 1st Dept. 2015]; West End Assn. v McGlone, 32 Misc 3d 145[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51732[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2011]; see also 170 W. 85th St. Tenants Assoc. v Cruz, 173 AD2d 338 [1991]).

Respondents' remaining appellate arguments in support of their preanswer dismissal motion, to the extent preserved, are properly made in a postanswer motion for summary [*2]judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.