Mark Berkovich v. Clifford Jakubowski

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2014-0095, Mark Berkovich v. Clifford
Jakubowski, the court on January 23, 2015, issued the following
order:

Having considered the brief and record submitted on appeal, we conclude
that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We
reverse.

The defendant, Clifford Jakubowski (tenant), appeals an order of the
Circuit Court (Bamberger, J.) entering a judgment in favor of the plaintiff,
Mark Berkovich (landlord), in an eviction action. The tenant argues that the
trial court erred in its ruling because termination of a lease, by itself, does not
constitute good cause for eviction pursuant to RSA 540:2, II(e) (2007) and
AIMCO Props. v. Dziewisz, 152 N.H. 587 (2005).

The record shows that the landlord is the owner of restricted property as
defined in RSA 540:1-a (2007), as the property contains four apartments, and
the landlord resides elsewhere. Pursuant to RSA 540:2, II (2007), the lessor or
owner of restricted property may terminate a tenancy only for reasons
enumerated in that statute, which include: failure to pay rent; substantial
damage to the premises; material breach of the lease; behavior of the tenant
adversely affecting other tenants; lead remediation; or “other good cause.”

On October 14, 2013, the landlord served an eviction notice on the
tenant stating “termination of lease” as the “other good cause” and the only
reason for the eviction. When the tenant refused to vacate the premises, the
landlord filed a landlord-tenant writ. On December 31, 2013, the tenant filed a
motion to dismiss, asserting that termination of the lease does not constitute
“other good cause” under RSA 540:2, II, citing AIMCO Props. v. Dziewisz. On
January 9, 2014, the trial court held a merits hearing in which the tenant, who
was self-represented at the hearing, reiterated the argument in his motion to
dismiss. After taking the matter under advisement, the trial court issued an
order on the same date awarding judgment to the landlord. On January 21,
2014, the trial court denied the tenant’s motion for reconsideration, in which
the tenant again raised this issue.

In AIMCO Props. v. Dziewisz, we held that the expiration of a lease, by
itself, does not constitute good cause for an eviction as required by RSA 540:2,
II. AIMCO Props. v. Dziewisz, 152 N.H. at 590. In this case, the landlord
alleged no good cause in its eviction notice other than the expiration of the
lease. The tenant argues that this case is indistinguishable from AIMCO Props.
We agree. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order entering judgment for
the landlord.

Reversed.

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2