Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Aspep Corp. v. Giuca

Decided: July 9, 1993.

ASPEP CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,
v.
FRANCISCO AND VIRGINIA GIUCA, DEFENDANTS



Koblitz, J.s.c.

Koblitz

[269 NJSuper Page 100] Plaintiff Aspep Corporation brings this summary dispossess action under the Anti-Eviction Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(g)(2), seeking to evict the defendant in order to correct a code violation. The case involves an issue which our courts have not yet addressed, namely, whether non-compliance with the notice requirement

of N.J.A.C. 5:11-7.1 to -7.5 (promulgated under the Relocation Act) results in a failure to satisfy the notice requirements of the Anti-Eviction Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1 to -61.12. The following facts relate to the jurisdictional issue of the sufficiency of the notice to quit.

Defendants Francisco and Virginia Giuca reside in plaintiff's building in Cliffside Park under an oral month-to-month agreement. On September 30, 1992, the construction code official of the Borough of Cliffside Park served plaintiff with a notice of violation and order to terminate citing violations of the building code standards, enumerated in N.J.A.C. 5:23-2.4, which were not the fault of the tenant. The notice requires plaintiff to bring the building into compliance with the code.

On October 30, 1992, plaintiff served defendants with a three months' notice to quit which establishes the landlord-tenant relationship. Paragraph 3 of the notice also provides the reason for termination:

The landlord/owner of the property seeks to comply with local housing inspectors who have cited him for substantial violations affecting the health and safety of tenants and it is unfeasible to so comply without removing the tenants. (N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(g)(2)).

Plaintiff attached a copy of the notice of violation and order to terminate to its notice.

On November 24, 1992, plaintiff sent a follow-up letter to defendants which reiterated the previous notice's reason for terminating the lease. On March 12, 1993, plaintiff served another notice which contained statements as required by N.J.A.C. 5:11-7.2(b), but did not provide a new date of termination.

The Commissioner of the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) promulgated N.J.A.C. 5:11-7.1 to 7.5 under a grant of authority from the Relocation Act, N.J.S.A. 20:4-10(b). Subsection 7.1(a) provides that a notice to quit must contain the following statement:

I AM ASKING YOU TO MOVE BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT ACTION. YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR FINANCIAL AND OTHER BENEFITS UNDER THE RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND RESIDENTIAL EVICTION

ACTS (N.J.S.A. 52:31B-1 et seq., N.J.S.A. 20:4-1 et seq., and N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1 et seq.). YOU MAY CALL THE RELOCATION OFFICE AT (giving the accurate address and the telephone number of the person responsible for relocation in this area).

Additionally, Subsection 7.2(b) requires that a notice to quit, under the Anti-Eviction Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1g(2), must ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.