After serving a notice of intent to refuse a lease renewal (Golub Notice), a landlord commenced a summary holdover proceeding, based on the tenant’s alleged non-primary residence. The tenant moved to dismiss. The landlord had previously commenced a non-primary proceeding against the tenant (first proceeding) “using the same Golub Notice.” The first proceeding was dismissed following a traverse hearing by order dated Nov. 16, 2016. The landlord thereafter served the tenant with a 30-day notice dated Jan. 24, 2017. The Jan. 24 notice “refers to the Golub Notice, but no copy of the Golub Notice was attached to the thirty-day notice.” In March 2017, the landlord commenced another non-primary residence case against the tenant (second proceeding). The second proceeding was discontinued without prejudice, since a copy of the Golub Notice was not served with either the predicate notice or the pleadings. Prior to discontinuance of the second proceeding, the landlord commenced the subject proceeding.

The landlord had not served a new Golub Notice or 30-day notice before commencing the subject proceeding. The tenant contended that the subject proceeding should be dismissed because the Jan. 24 30-day notice failed to state facts necessary to establish its claim, since “the Golub Notice containing such facts was not attached to the thirty-day notice” and because “dismissal of the first proceeding renders the Golub Notice stale.” Although the tenant did not specify which CPLR section its motion was based on, the court treated the tenant’s motion as a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action.