In ATM One, LLC v. Landaverde (190 Misc.2d 76 [App Term, 2d Dept 2001] a judge determined that while 9 NYCRR 2508.1 was dispositive of the manner in which service might be made, it was silent as to the timing of when service would be "deemed" complete. The Court (at 32, col 1) expressed concern that to "deem" service complete only upon receipt by the tenant "would create insurmountable problems of proof for petitioners as to when receipt actually occurred," but also expressed concern that to "deem" service complete upon mailing would deprive the tenant of "the ten (10) day period to cure intended by the regulations." The Court therefore "borrowed" the concept embodied in CPLR 2103 (b) (2) requiring the addition of five days to the period provided if service is made by mail. Since the additional five days had in Landaverde not been allotted by the landlord, this court dismissed the petition. The Appellate Term affirmed the dismissal, but modified the decision. (190 Misc.2d 76, 736 N.Y.S.2d 833.) The Appellate Term rejected the "borrowing" of CPLR 2103(b) (2). The Appellate Term observed that CPLR 2103(b) is by its terms applicable only to papers served on an attorney for a party "in a pending action" (at 77), and therefore inapplicable to the service directly upon a party of a prelitigation notice. The Appellate Term instead applied the well-settled doctrine that "because forfeitures of leaseholds are not favored, the rule in real estate matters is that notices to cure and to terminate are deemed given upon delivery, not upon mailing" (190 Misc 2d at 77 ), and on this basis affirmed the dismissal.