mons v Simmons, 2 Misc 3d at 544; see Kaufman v CBS Inc.,
135 Misc 2d 64, 65-66 [Civ Ct, NY County 1987].)
702 41 MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS, 3d SERIES
[971 NYS2d 422]
NYCHA CONEY ISLAND HOUSES, Petitioner, v ARCADIO RAMOS,
Respondent.
Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, September 16, 2013
HEADNOTES
Pleading — Amendment — Landlord and Tenant Summary Proceed-
ing — Breach of Warranty of Habitability Defense
1. In a summary nonpayment proceeding which had been adjourned a
number of times over the course of two years, including many adjournments
by attorney stipulations, respondent tenant, who initially represented himself,
but had been represented by counsel for more than 11/2 years, was entitled to
amend his answer to add an affirmative defense of breach of the warranty of
habitability. Courts have broad discretion to grant relief from pleading defaults
where the moving party’s claim or defense is meritorious, the default was not
willful and the other party is not prejudiced. Here, respondent’s initial self-
represented answer, which stated that ‘‘there are conditions in the apartment
which need to be repaired and/or services which the [p]etitioner has not
provided,’’ alleged as a defense a breach of the warranty of habitability. In ad-
dition, a proposed stipulation signed by respondent and petitioner’s counsel
and several of the attorney stipulations adjourning the proceeding addressed
the conditions in the apartment that respondent claimed were in need of
repair. While some of the attorney stipulations did not raise the need for
repairs, those stipulations similarly did not state that the repairs were no lon-
ger an issue. The habitability claims were well documented and there was no
demonstration of actual surprise or prejudice on petitioner’s part.