## Facts

- 5000 Park Associates owned a multi-unit apartment building in Weehawken, New Jersey; Ramon Collado was a residential tenant paying $208.93 per month.
- Since about June 1985, Collado kept a small chihuahua in his apartment; he lived alone and the dog was his primary companion.
- In May 1990, the landlord distributed lengthy written “Apartment Rental Rules and Regulations,” which Collado signed as accepted in June 1990.
- The rules prohibited tenants from keeping any mammal, reptile, or bird in an apartment unless expressly permitted in writing by the landlord.
- Collado was unable to read English; the rules were read to him by a friend.
- In March 1991, the landlord learned Collado had the dog and served a notice to cease directing immediate removal of the dog.
- Collado did not remove the dog; in April 1991, the landlord served a notice to quit terminating the tenancy as of May 31, 1991 and later refused June rent tendered by Collado.
- The landlord filed a summary dispossess action under N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(e) alleging violation of written lease terms.

## Issues

1. Whether the landlord’s notice to cease and notice to quit constituted “suitable notice” under N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.2 for an eviction based on an alleged lease-rule violation.
2. Whether, without suitable notice, the landlord could obtain possession under N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(e) based solely on the tenant’s keeping of a small companion dog contrary to a written rule.

## Decision

- The Law Division held the notice to cease and notice to quit were legally inadequate and did not satisfy the Anti-Eviction Act’s “suitable notice” requirement.
- Because suitable notice was not provided, the landlord failed to establish a statutory basis for dispossession under N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(e).
- Judgment was entered for the tenant; the landlord’s claim for possession was denied.

## Legal Principles

- Under N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.2, “suitable notice” is a substantive requirement and must be evaluated in context, not treated as a purely formal mailing or service of papers.
- The Anti-Eviction Act is remedial and is construed to limit evictions to reasonable grounds while ensuring tenants receive meaningful notice of the basis and consequences of the proposed eviction.
- In assessing whether notice is “suitable,” courts may consider the tenant’s ability to understand the notice and the clarity and specificity of the notices and related lease materials in the circumstances presented.
- Absent suitable notice, a landlord cannot proceed to dispossession for an alleged violation of lease rules under N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(e).

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the eviction action because the landlord’s notices, viewed in light of the tenant’s inability to read English and the presentation of the lease rules, did not provide the “suitable notice” required by New Jersey’s Anti-Eviction Act.


5000 Park Assocs. v. Collado, 253 N.J. Super. 653, 602 A.2d 803 (Law Div. 1991)