543 A.2d 808, 812 (D.C.1988)). Thus, under both D.C.Code § 45-2551(b) and the terms of the lease, a notice to correct or vacate is deemed to expire at the beginning of the first rental period following the passage of thirty days. In preparing the notice, Ms. New-some erred when she stated that appellants must cure their violations by August 26. The thirty-day period within which to cure or vacate expired not on August 26, as the notice said, but rather on September 1. But this error did not make the notice invalid per se, as appellants contend; instead, it had the effect of extending the time within which appellants must pay their back rent. Appellants had more than sufficient actual notice to correct their violations of the lease or vacate by September 1. See Cormier, 609 A.2d at 682 (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, the complaint was not
holding that the court lacks jurisdiction where a complaint was filed more than 30 days after the filing of the summons holding that tenant had received more than 30 days to correct violations of the lease when the notice was served on february 27 and the complaint was filed on april 4 holding that former employees of a brokerage firm who had a contractual right to a share of any commission received by the firm upon extension of a lease were not entitled to a share of the commission received when the landlord and tenant entered an amendment to the lease which extended the duration but also added new terms this was a new lease not an extension of the prior lease holding that notice provisions of rcra and cwa were satisfied where proper parties had notice in fact of the alleged violations more than 60 days before suit was filed holding that landlord was not liable where dog injured child nine days after landlordtenant relationship was established and where the lease called for 30 days notice before it could be terminated