• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

30-day notice for terminating month-to-month tenancy in NY. Like California?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

bowlerboy

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? New York.
====================
THEME: What is the proper 30-day notice for terminating month-to-month tenancy in NY? Is it like California, or not? When can you give 30-day notice? When does the clock really start?


In another forum on real estate law, someone inquired what the law is regarding the date when 30-day notices had to be given, and the terse, one sentence response was: "The 30-day notice can be given on any day, not necessarily on the 1st or any particular day."

I found that answer inadequate, because it is written in such an absolute way that it is being offered as a definitive, universal, all-encompassing declaration that a reader can reasonably conclude must be legally true in all states of the nation. Unfortunately, I am discovering, to my dismay, that this may not indeed be the case.

Personally, I find it absurd and distressing that giving a proper "30-day notice" to terminate a month-to-month tenancy in California may not be not considered a proper notice in New York State, because I am currently involved in a law suit against my former landlady in a dispute on this issue, as well as on an issue regarding a breach of the warrant of habitability, which was the trigger that caused me to abandon my new place.

To date, I cannot find a clearly written statement of what it means for a tenant to give proper 30-day notice to terminate a month-to-month tenancy outside of New York City --at least a statement (or reference to case law) that is as clearly expressed as the statements I have read which explain how giving notice works in California. The specific statute in New York's Real Property Law (RPL 232-b) is written in a peculiar form of gobbledygook that does not lend itself to a clear understanding by people who know how to use the English language unambiguously.

I have read the Nolo Press books on Tenant Rights in California, where I used to live, and, in preparation for this lawsuit, I have also read the Nolo Press books on both tenant rights and landlord laws in New York state, both of which were written by the same attorney, Mary Ann Hallenborg.

Here is what author Hallenborg writes in Chapter 14, "How Month-to-Month Tenancies End" in her book, "New York Tenants' Rights." "If you live outside New York City, state law requires you to provide your landlord with at least one month's notice of termination (RPL 232-b), unless your landlord has agreed to less notice. Your notice may be oral or written, so long as you make it clear that you intend to move out on a definite date, at least one month from the date you give notice." After giving an example, she continues: "You can give notice at any time --in other words, you don't have to give notice so that the tenancy will end on the last day of the month. If a tenancy ends mid-month, you must pay until that date of the following month --regardless of whether you move out sooner."

Based on my understanding of the non-lawyer language used in those Nolo Press books, I felt confident that I understood what a proper 30-day notice means, when you must deliver it, and what period of time those 30 days cover. Based on the authors of the books for tenants’ rights in both California and in New York, I interpreted that 30-day notice in one state meant 30-day notice in another. I deduced that there is no difference in how the math worked. However, a New York attorney I recently talked to said that the Hallenborg apparently misunderstands the statute and that New York counts the days differently, so I must be making an error in my interpretation.

So, I'm confused. Here's the specific situation I am faced with. Let's see if someone can write back and, in clear, simple English, provide me with a correct, legal, definitive answer --ideally with some references to citations or case law that can be convincing and useful.

In early November 2004, I agreed to take possession of a rental unit outside of New York City on a month-to-month basis beginning on December 1st. The rental unit is a small, furnished one bedroom that would be closer to my new job in Rochester, sparing me the agony of a long, daily commute from Buffalo, where my primary residence is.

There was no written agreement. No special terms regarding giving notice were discussed, so the prevailing laws of New York state must apply. I gave the landlady first month's rent and a month's security deposit. On November 15th, the landlady phoned me and said that I could move in two weeks earlier than the originally agreed upon move-in date of December 1st, because the current tenants had suddenly moved out. Would I be kind enough to move in, so that those previous tenants could get some of their security deposit back?, asked the landlady.

To oblige everyone, I agreed to take possession on November 16th. Within 3 days, I concluded that it was a mistake to move in there, because I had no hot water for taking showers or for cooking, and because the place was "furnished" with a couch that was so infested with the dog hairs of the previous tenant's pet that I considered it unsanitary and unhealthy. The unit had no hot water because heat was supplied by a external propane gas tank, and the landlady conveniently neglected to inform me that I had to apply for, and obtain my own account with a propane gas vendor. Only after I moved in did I discover --after complaining to her about the lack of heat and then learning from her who the propane gas vendor was that I should contact-- that it would take about two weeks to get hot water. That delay was unacceptable to me; I needed hot water then, not in two weeks. That lack of essential service, coupled with the filthy dog-hair covered couch, prompted me to conclude that this particular landlady did not deserve my business, so, only 3 days after I moved in, I gave her my written 30-day notice to terminate my month-to-month tenancy.

Having lived in California as a renter for over 17 years, I knew that a tenant could give 30-day notice at any time during the month. I also knew -- and my re-reading of the Nolo Press book confirmed my understanding-- that giving my 30-day notice on the 3rd day into the first term of my tenancy meant that I was obligated to pay her rent for that first 30-days period, which extended from November 16th through December 15th, plus three (3) days of the following 30-day period. Accordingly, in my written termination notice, I provided my landlady with a calculation that paid her for a total of 33 days of rent, and I requested 27 days of my security deposit.

However, here is where the dispute arose. The landlady informed me that she was entitled to keep ALL of my two month's worth of rent --all the way up to January 15, 2005-- because I did not give her proper 30-day notice. According to her, the only time a tenant (or landlord) can give 30-day notice in a month-to-month tenancy is just before the beginning of the NEXT month. In my particular case, then, she alleged that the clock would not start for my 30-day notice until the first day of the next month's tenancy, which would be from December 16th through January 15th.

Obviously, I was quite upset to hear that, because it just does not gibe with my experience of how the law regarding 30-day notice works in California. In California, if a tenant has a month-to-month tenancy that begins on the first on the month, but the tenant gives a 30-day notice on the 10th day of the month, the tenant is obligated to pay rent for 30 days from the date he gives notice, that is, only until the 10th of the following month. There is no legal obligation to pay rent beyond those 30 days. Thirty (30) days is thirty (30) days! Anyway, that was how it is explained in the Nolo Press book on Tenants Rights in California, and that is still how it is explained in several web sites I have visited.

In reading attorney Hallenborg's books on how the law works in New York, I concluded that, from the language she use (a small portion of which I excerpted above) that the 30-day notice rules work the same way in New York. However, a New York state real estate attorney I consulted recently --and to whom I showed the excerpts from Hallenborg's book-- said that Hallenborg must be misunderstanding the statute in New York. He informed that he believes that New York does things differently. Apparently, according to him, the clock for giving a 30-day notice to terminate a month-to-month tenancy in New York (outside of New York City) does not start on any day during the month, and go for the immediate 30 days thereafter, as it does in California. Apparently, in New York, the 30-day notice clock does not start until the beginning of the next monthly term.

I am very confused about this issue: I cannot tell who is correct, or what the law is on this matter. My search for clear language and for examples and case law to explain how 30-day notice works in New York brought me to this web site, among others. The general question I seek an answer for is this: Does the clock for giving 30-day notice in New York start on a different day than it does in California? My landlady avers that it does; based on my reading the Nolo Press books, I said 30 days means what it says: 30 days from the date notice is given.

So, now I ask: With specific reference to my case, please --because real life examples with specific dates and simple math works so much better than references to the generic gobbledygook language of the statute which created this ambiguity in the first place!-- did I, or did I not give proper 30-day notice? Considering that I gave notice on the 3rd day into my rental term, am I correct in thinking that I am only legally obligated to pay the landlady 33 days worth of rent and that she is required to return the balance of my security deposit to me. Or, is the landlady entitled to keep 60 days' worth of my rent?

bowlerboy
 


treese

Senior Member
A month-to-month tenancy outside New York City may be terminated by either party by giving at least one month's notice before the expiration of the term. For example, if the rent is due on the first of each month, the landlord must inform the tenant by September 30th before the October rent is due that he wants the tenant to move out by November 1st.

From:
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/realestate/guide_intro.html#3



I did not read your entire post, only the title.
 
Last edited:

BL

Senior Member
treese said:
A month-to-month tenancy outside New York City may be terminated by either party by giving at least one month's notice before the expiration of the term. For example, if the rent is due on the first of each month, the landlord must inform the tenant by September 30th before the October rent is due that he wants the tenant to move out by November 1st.

From:
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/realestate/guide_intro.html#3



I did not read your entire post, only the title.
You're brain would spin if ya did ..... :)

The specific statute in New York's Real Property Law (RPL 232-b) is written in a peculiar form of gobbledygook that does not lend itself to a clear understanding by people who know how to use the English language unambiguously.
Huh ? Is CA. importing something weird now ?

What part of before the 1st of the month notice , is not in English ?
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top