In Haruvi v. Rosen, NYLJ, June 15, 2005, p 21, col 1 (Civ Ct, NY County) the predicate notice therein merely tracked the statutory language for owner occupancy grounds, except for one "fact"--the owner's statement of his present residence. The owner did not state any reason why he wished to leave his residence and relocate to the respondent's apartment, nor did he state whether he owned or rented his present residence. The Court adopts the conclusion of the Honorable Peter M. Wendt in Haruvi: "Respondents cannot be expected to speculate what facts or reasons have caused petitioners to refuse to renew respondents' lease in an effort to obtain the Rosens' apartment for Abe Haruvi's primary residence. These facts are exclusively within petitioners' knowledge, yet are stated nowhere in the notice of nonrenewal. Thus it is for petitioners to supply these facts, or at least one important one, in the notice. RSC 2524.2(b). The appellate authority in this jurisdiction now overwhelmingly supports the rule that the predicate notice forming the basis of an owner's use eviction proceeding against a rent stabilized tenant, where the owner has personal knowledge of all the facts, must state at least some actual reason why the owner wants to reside in the tenants' apartment." Judge Wendt was affirmed (Haruvi v. Rosen, 10 Misc 3d 137[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 52161[U] [App Term, 1st Dept]), with the Appellate Term referring to the "barebones allegation" concerning the owner's intent to primarily reside at the subject premises and the "unamplified assertion" in the notice as to where the owner presently resided. The court concluded that: "the notice of nonrenewal utilized by the landlord was insufficient to serve as a predicate for the within owner occupancy proceeding, since It failed to set forth allegations tending to support the stated ground for eviction that were fact specific to this particular proceeding (see Numano v. Vicario, 165 Misc 2d 457, 632 N.Y.S.2d 926 [1995])."