In Sharp v. Norwood, 223 A.D.2d 6 (1st Dept. 1996), aff'd 89 N.Y 2d 1068 (1997) the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of a petition for failure to state a claim of nuisance. The Court held that: While we note that chronic late payment of rent may constitute a breach of a leasehold obligation, the instant holdover proceeding was not predicated upon such a breach. Rather, the underlying holdover petition is based solely on the ground that tenant committed or permitted a nuisance pursuant to section 2204.2(a)(2) of the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations and not upon the ground that tenant breached a leasehold obligation. It is quite probable that the landlord did not predicate this action upon a breach of a lease provision so as to avoid the remedial prescription of RPAPL 753(4), which grants a 10-day stay for the tenant to cure the breach. By contrast, a nuisance found to be caused by chronic late payment of rent cannot be cured. (223 A.D.2d at 11.) The Court went on to state that, "while a nuisance based on chronic late payment of rent also constitutes a breach of a substantial obligation of the lease, the type and degree of evidence required to establish a nuisance differs from the proof needed to show a breach of a leasehold obligation. Since the landlord chose to proceed by way of a nuisance in this proceeding, they are bound by the degree of proof needed to establish such claim." (Id at 11.) In affirming the Appellate Division decision in Sharp the Court of Appeals again drew the distinction between chronic late payment of rent cases based upon nuisance and those premised on a violation of the lease. The Court held that "while these facts might have supported an eviction proceeding on the ground that respondent violated a 'substantial obligation' of her tenancy, petitioners did not assert this ground in their holdover petition." (89 N.Y.2d at 1069.)