My landlord served me with a 3-day notice which is titled "3-day notice to pay rent or lease terminates." I didn't pay the back rent in that time, so is the lease terminated? I am planning to move within a few weeks, on June 15, and have given him written notice of that, but his agent is now telling me that under NY law I have to give a full 30 days notice. Do I still have to give a full 30 days notice even though he effectively terminated the lease himself? Thank you.

You still have to give 30 days notice. Just because you didn't pay rent and he gave you a 3-day notice doesn't mean the rules change.

I wasn't sure if I still had to give the 30 days notice because the 3-day notice he gave me states that if I fail to pay the full amount in that 3 days the "lease will be terminated and you must surrender possession of the premises to the landlord."

Right, but you didn't do that - you stayed in the apartment. So you're still a tenant, and you still have to provide a 30-day notice.

You still have to pay the back rent and if you don't, you'll probably get sued.

I plan to pay the entire amount of rent due. I just don't understand why I would now need to give a 30-day notice, when he in effect was the one who terminated the lease.

The lease was not terminated. The landlord gave you the option to either a)pay the rent or b)leave. If you didn't do either, it would have been up to the landlord to then file for eviction.

So you are still legally a tenant, and still have to give 30 days notice. If you gave notice in the middle of May, you'll probably be liable for June rent as well, unless they can find someone to move in sooner.

I thought the lease terminated because it specifically states "If you fail to tender the full payment, your lease will be terminated and you must surrender possession of the premises to the landlord."

Well, we can keep going in circles or you can accept state law. Whether the lease was terminated or not is completely irrelevant. Hundreds of thousands of people have no written lease - they still have to give the notice as required by their state law.

OK. Wow. I'm certainly not trying to "go around in circles" with you. He has basically demanded the return of the house, and that's what I'm doing. I'm just not sure why I would still have to give a 30-day notice, when he's already demanded that I leave. Do you have anything I can reference in regard to this, where a tenant is leaving after a 3-day notice but before an eviction?

What part of "state law" are you not understanding? The state of New York requires a tenant to give their landlord 30 days notice.

Yes, he demanded the house - but you did not provide the house by the date he demanded. Now, he can file for eviction if he wants to. None of that changes what the state law is.

My landlord served me with a 3-day notice which is titled "3-day notice to pay rent or lease terminates." I didn't pay the back rent in that time, so is the lease terminated? I am planning to move within a few weeks, on June 15, and have given him written notice of that, but his agent is now telling me that under NY law I have to give a full 30 days notice. Do I still have to give a full 30 days notice even though he effectively terminated the lease himself? Thank you.


His agent is right - you need to give the landlord 30 days notice because you did not pay or vacate within the 3 days, as demanded.

I didn't read through this whole thread, quite frankly, but if this is a lease it is still in effect the landlord can demand that you pay until the end of the lease, although he does have to try to find another tenant and mitigate his damages.

The landlord did NOT terminate the lease. He tried to get you out and end the lease with a 3-day notice. You did not leave. The lease is still good.

And, yes, I'm in NY.

Honestly, your answer was quite rude. I'm perfectly capable of understanding an intelligent answer. Perhaps I was looking for a reference to my question other than "because I said so."

Maybe another poster can help me. The landlord has given me what I understand to be a notice to move out and vacate the premises, and has then later told me that I need to provide him a 30-day notice. Is this legal?

Thank you, JudyKayTee. I appreciate your response.

Honestly, your answer was quite rude. I'm perfectly capable of understanding an intelligent answer. Perhaps I was looking for a reference to my question other than "because I said so."

Maybe another poster can help me. The landlord has given me what I understand to be a notice to move out and vacate the premises, and has then later told me that I need to provide him a 30-day notice. Is this legal?



Rude? I'm rude? You keep asking the same basic question and won't accept the answer.

I answered you. I'm in NY. I own property. I'm a landlord. You didn't vacate in the 3 days as demanded. The lease is still in effect. You need to give 30 days notice or else you owe rent.

YES, THIS IS LEGAL.

No, I was replying to the other poster where she asked me why I wasn't capable of understanding. THAT was the post I thought was rude, and you will note that I thanked you (JudyKayTee) for your response. Of course, that was just before you called me ridiculous. I'm sorry if you feel I'm ridiculous for asking for a reference concerning the law, or for thinking that the lease was terminated when I was served with a paper that indicates in writing that the lease has been terminated.

YES, THIS IS LEGAL.

Yes, but can you PROVE it? ;)

I vote that the thread be closed. The OP has been given the legally accurate answer seven times and keeps asking for an answer. Oh, and she tries to imply that you and I are the ones with attitude problems... lovely.

No, I was replying to the other poster where she asked me why I wasn't capable of understanding. THAT was the post I thought was rude, and you will note that I thanked you (JudyKayTee) for your response. Of course, that was just before you called me ridiculous. I'm sorry if you feel I'm ridiculous for asking for a reference concerning the law, or for thinking that the lease was terminated when I was served with a paper that indicates in writing that the lease has been terminated.

NY state law says you have to give 30 days notice. I told you this 5 times. Judy told you this twice. You keep saying, "But why?"

Am I rude? I don't think so... frustrated, absolutely.

Read the paper again. Otherwise, time to close.

I thought I had asked an appropriate question, and had asked appropriate follow-up questions. I understand a 30 day notice is generally required in NY state, but because the landlord had given me notice, I don't understand why I also have to give notice to him.

I thought I had asked an appropriate question, and had asked appropriate followup questions. I understand a 30 day notice is generally required in NY state, but because the landlord had given me notice, I don't understand why I also have to give notice to him.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/real-estate-law/do-still-have-give-30-days-notice-after-being-served-3-day-notice-358422.html#post1761085

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/real-estate-law/do-still-have-give-30-days-notice-after-being-served-3-day-notice-358422.html#post1761085

I'm not sure why you gave me a link to my own post?

This lease termination via notice of 3 day pay or leave did not happen because you neither paid the whole amount owed or moved out within the 3 days.

The lease continued when you did not move within 3 days. Since the lease is still in effect, you now have to follow the law and give 30 days notice.

It's like looking at a pile of spaghetti noodles on your plate. The "law" says, "eat them all." But you left two. Yeah, it's only two noodles, and you're full... Just eat them, the law does not care if you're full or gluten intolerant.

Because you keep arguing the same thing.

Thank you, Simonaugie, for your answer. I definitely appreciate it.

And, no, This8384, I was not arguing with anyone. I was trying to understand the law regarding this situation, which is obviously why I posted the question to begin with.

Thank you, Simonaugie, for your answer. I definitely appreciate it.

And, no, This8384, I was not arguing with anyone. I was trying to understand the law regarding this situation, which is obviously why I posted the question to begin with.

Oh, my bad. When you receive the same answer over and over and over and over again, only to respond, "Why should I have to?" it comes off as arguing.

I'm sorry, then. I thought I had asked a question on a forum where I could have an intelligent conversation and possibly be given a reference to an actual law, not a forum where responses would be so juvenile as to include "my bad." And if you re-read the entire thread, no I did not continue to ask the same questions. You continued to say that I would owe rent, which I completely agree that I do. That was never the question. Your responses were basically "because I said so." You made no reference to an actual law dealing with a 3-day notice. You just implied that I was too ignorant to understand what you were saying. Perhaps if you spoke more intelligently, you would be easier understood. There was no need for you to become rude. You could have simply passed on the thread and not responded.

I'm sorry, then. I thought I had asked a question on a forum where I could have an intelligent conversation and possibly be given a reference to an actual law, not a forum where responses would be so juvenile as to include "my bad." And if you re-read the entire thread, no I did not continue to ask the same questions. You continued to say that I would owe rent, which I completely agree that I do. That was never the question. Your responses were basically "because I said so." You made no reference to an actual law dealing with a 3-day notice. You just implied that I was too ignorant to understand what you were saying. Perhaps if you spoke more intelligently, you would be easier understood. There was no need for you to become rude. You could have simply passed on the thread and not responded.

When 3 separate people are all quoting NY law yet you don't seem to comprehend, we become juvenile? Absolutely amazing.

Yes, you did ask the same question(s):

Do I still have to give a full 30 days notice even though he effectively terminated the lease himself?

I just don't understand why I would now need to give a 30-day notice, when he in effect was the one who terminated the lease.

I thought the lease terminated because it specifically states "If you fail to tender the full payment, your lease will be terminated and you must surrender possession of the premises to the landlord."

I'm just not sure why I would still have to give a 30-day notice, when he's already demanded that I leave.

The landlord has given me what I understand to be a notice to move out and vacate the premises, and has then later told me that I need to provide him a 30-day notice. Is this legal?

I understand a 30 day notice is generally required in NY state, but because the landlord had given me notice, I don't understand why I also have to give notice to him.

If you're going to keep "not arguing" then go pay an attorney to tell you the SAME THING you were told here for free.

Closed. Becoming argumentative.

Because I can, I'm going to add a summary here.

The problem Linda is that you misunderstand what the 3 day notice represented. Its not a pay or terminate it's a pay or vacate! So it tells you that you have to pay in full or move out. Such a notice is the FIRST step in the eviction process. When the 3 day notice expires the landlord can then file for an eviction order. But the lease still remains in effect until an eviction order is issued.

Because you gave a move out date, I suspect the landlord decided not to pursue an eviction because you promised to be out in about the time (or less) it would take to get an eviction order.

But the lease is still in eefect and you are required to give 30 days notice of a move, which, in effect, obligates you for rental for the full 30 days notice.

Now its possible that previous posters should have explained these details to you. But you asked if you had to give 30 days notice and you were told you did. You kept asking the same question over and over. So your comments about the responses you got were more your issue then the responders.