The following papers numbered 1-4 were read and considered on respondent's motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(2).

On February 10, 2023, petitioner filed a Notice of Petition and Petition regarding a holdover matter. Respondent was served and has appeared. On March 21, 2023, respondent filed the instant motion to dismiss, pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(2). Respondent claims petitioner failed to serve a proper predicate notice and the petition fails to properly state the facts upon which it is based pursuant to RPAPL § 741(1). Petitioner filed opposition on March 25, 2023 and respondent replied on April 14, 2023.

This Court will first address respondent's argument that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction based on an improper predicate notice. It is undisputed that failure to serve a proper predicate notice, setting forth sufficient facts to establish the grounds for a landlord to recover possession, is a prerequisite to a holdover proceeding. (Chinatown Apartments, Inc. v. Chu Cho Lam, 51 NY2d 786 [1980]). Dismissal of the petition is required if petitioner fails to serve a proper predicate notice. (Id.).

Additionally, where petitioner claims respondent has violated a lease provision, the predicate notice must state the "who, what, when, and where" grounds for eviction along with the specific violated lease provision. (510 East 5th Street Assocs. v. Gatchell, 9/20/89 N.Y.L.J. 22, col. 2 (New York County Civ. Ct. 1989). Furthermore, in rent-stabilized premises predicate notices must state " . . . the facts necessary to establish the existence of [the] ground . . . " for eviction. (9 NYCRR § 2524.2[b]).

Here, petitioner's predicate notice is dated January 6, 2023 and states in relevant part:

THIS IS A (10) DAY NOTICE TO CURE AND A THIRTY (30) DAY NOTICE TO REMOVE. THAT YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE FOLLOWING:

Since at least January 1, 2022 and thereafter usually late at night and early morning, you, your family and guests have been making loud and excess noises (yelling, banging) in the apartment and common areas which is a nuisance and a substantial violation of your lease (Para 20 (1)) as pursuant to ETPA Regulation § 2504.2a and 6.

This Court agrees with respondent that the above-referenced predicate notice is vague and lacks specific supporting facts such as specific dates, times, and details. Petitioner states the issue has occurred since " . . . at least January 1, 2022 . . . " however, fails to state any other exact dates, or the number of times, an incident may have occurred. Furthermore, petitioner uses vague and conclusory language such as "usually," "loud and excess noises (yelling, banging)," and "common areas." This Court finds this vague and conclusory language is insufficient to allow respondent a meaningful opportunity to prepare a defense. (see e.g., Carriage Ct. Inn, Inc. v. Rains, 138 Misc 2d 444 [NY Co. Civ. Ct. 1988]; Spivack Realty Co. v. Svobodny, 21 Misc 3d 1147[A] [Nassau Co. Dist. Ct. 2008]).

Based on the foregoing, respondent's motion to dismiss the petition based on an improper predicate notice is hereby granted. As such, this Court need not address respondent's remaining arguments that the petition fails to satisfy RPAPL § 741(4). The petition is hereby dismissed without prejudice.