N.Y. Real Property Law § 232-b

One month notice: N.Y. Real Property Law § 232-b

N.Y. Real Property Law § 232-b allows a tenant or non-residential landlord to end a month-to-month tenancy outside NYC by giving one month's notice.

Official text N.Y. Real Property Law § 232-b — New York

§ 232-b. Notification to terminate monthly tenancy or tenancy from month to month outside the city of New York. A monthly tenancy or tenancy from month to month of any lands or buildings located outside of the city of New York may be terminated by the tenant or for a tenancy other than a residential tenancy the landlord, upon the tenant's or non-residential landlord's notifying the landlord or non-residential tenant at least one month before the expiration of the term of the tenant's election to terminate; provided, however, that no notification shall be necessary to terminate a tenancy for a definite term.

Text as published in the 2026 snapshot of the code.

Source: Vaquill Open US Law, compiled from official state publishers (huggingface.co), reproduced under license CC BY 4.0.

Read this provision at the official source →

What it actually says

Outside New York City, a monthly tenancy or tenancy from month to month may be terminated on notice given at least one month before the expiration of the term. Read the list of who may give it carefully, because the section is asymmetric: the tenant may terminate; and for a tenancy other than a residential tenancy, the landlord may terminate. A residential landlord outside the City is not on this list.

That asymmetry is the point of the modern text. For residential tenancies, the landlord's side of ending a tenancy is governed elsewhere - by the notice of non-renewal in § 226-c, and, where it applies, by the good cause eviction article. Section 232-b remains the route for a tenant who wants out, and for either party in a commercial monthly tenancy.

The closing proviso limits the section's reach in a way that catches people out: no notification is necessary to terminate a tenancy for a definite term. A one-year lease ends when it ends; nothing in this section requires a month's notice to bring that about, and nothing in it converts such a tenancy into a monthly one.

When it applies

  • A month-to-month tenant upstate wants to give notice and move out.
  • A commercial monthly tenancy outside New York City is being wound up by the landlord.
  • A tenant on a fixed one-year lease is asked to give a month's notice to leave at the end of the term.
  • A landlord outside the City tries to end a residential monthly tenancy by giving one month's notice under this section.

What this section does not say

  • It does not give a residential landlord outside New York City a route to terminate. The text limits the landlord's power to tenancies other than residential.
  • It does not apply in New York City - that is § 232-a.
  • It does not require notice for a tenancy for a definite term, which ends on its own date.
  • It is not an eviction. Recovering possession from a tenant who stays runs through the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law.
  • It says nothing about rent increases, which are governed by § 226-c.

Worked examples

Invented situations, written to show how the wording bites. They are not real cases, not judgments and not precedent, and nothing here predicts what would happen in yours.

Illustrative example

A month-to-month tenant upstate gives three weeks' notice that she is leaving at the end of the month. The landlord says he is entitled to a full month and wants the extra rent.

How the wording applies

Outside New York City a monthly tenancy may be terminated on notice given at least one month before the expiration of the term, and the tenant is expressly among those who may give it. So this turns on the arithmetic rather than on anyone's reasonableness: three weeks is short of the month the section asks for.

How the parties settled it

They split it: the tenant pays the extra week and leaves the apartment clean and empty on the earlier date so the landlord can show it immediately.

Illustrative example

A landlord outside the City gives a residential month-to-month tenant one month's notice to quit and cites this section as his authority.

How the wording applies

The section is asymmetric and the list of who may terminate under it is the whole point: the tenant may, and for a tenancy other than a residential tenancy the landlord may. A residential landlord outside the City is not on that list, so the landlord's side of ending such a tenancy runs through § 226-c and, where it applies, the good cause article.

How the parties settled it

The landlord withdraws the notice and serves the correct one under § 226-c for this tenant's length of occupancy, and both agree a leaving date at the end of that period.

Illustrative example

A tenant on a one-year lease upstate is told she must give a month's notice or the lease will roll on into another year.

How the wording applies

The closing proviso answers it: no notification is necessary to terminate a tenancy for a definite term. A one-year lease ends on its own date, and nothing in the section requires notice to bring that about or turns such a tenancy into a monthly one.

How the parties settled it

They agree the lease ends on its stated date with no notice needed, and the tenant confirms in writing when the keys come back so the landlord can advertise in good time.

How courts have read it

Decisions construing this provision. The question and the summary are ours; the quoted sentence is the court's own words, taken from the published opinion. These are the decisions in our corpus, not every decision there is, and nothing here predicts any other case. Reported 2003 to 2017.

Carlo v. Koch-Matthews, 53 Misc. 3d 466 (2016)

trial courts

What the court had to decide

Whether Real Property Law § 232-b imposes a mandatory requirement on a tenant to give one month's notice before terminating a month-to-month tenancy.

What it held

The court held that Real Property Law § 232-b is permissive, not mandatory, because it uses the word 'may' rather than 'shall' or 'only'; however, the tenants still owed one month's rent under common-law principles governing month-to-month tenancies.

In the court's words
This language choice signifies that the legislature intended Real Property Law § 232-b’s edict to be permissive and not mandatory.

Hempstead Village Housing Associates v. Pitts, 41 Misc. 3d 714 (2013)

trial courts

What the court had to decide

Whether the notice of termination served on a Section 8 tenant for material noncompliance must comply with the one-month notice requirement of Real Property Law § 232-b.

What it held

The court held that a 22-day notice of termination satisfied due process and was sufficient for material noncompliance under HUD regulations, and that Real Property Law § 232-b does not require a one-month notice in this context because the termination was for material noncompliance and the lease and federal regulations govern.

In the court's words
This court rules that the 22-day notice given to respondent satisfies the due process requirements in order to protect his rights.

New Greenwich Gardens Associates, LLC v. Saunders, 23 Misc. 3d 521 (2009)

trial courts

What the court had to decide

Does Real Property Law § 232-b govern the timing of a notice to terminate when the termination is for material noncompliance under a lease for a definite term?

What it held

The court held that Real Property Law § 232-b does not dictate the timing of service when the termination is for material noncompliance, because the proceeding was not brought under that statute and the lease provides separate grounds for termination.

In the court's words
Neither the lease nor Real Property Law § 232-b dictate the timing of service where termination is for material noncompliance.

Source: Caselaw Access Project, CC0 1.0 Universal (public domain dedication).

Related sections

N.Y. Real Property Law § 232-a NYC Notice to Terminate: N.Y. Real Property Law § 232-a N.Y. Real Property Law § 226-c Five percent rent notice: N.Y. Real Property Law § 226-c N.Y. Real Property Law § 215 RPL § 215: no removal without good cause N.Y. Real Property Law § 216 Good cause eviction grounds: N.Y. Real Property Law § 216

That's the law. Now let's settle your problem.

Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the New York Consolidated Laws.

This is with

Or open a session directly and invite the other party.

We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.

This page reproduces the text of N.Y. Real Property Law § 232-b in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in New York.

← All New York law pages