OPINION OF THE COURT
Margaret Gammer, J.
Respondent tenant is a participant in the section 8 Federal housing subsidy program. Petitioner seeks to evict respondent on a claim that she needs the premises for use by a family member.
*794Respondent moves to dismiss the petition on the grounds that petitioner has not requested and received the required written authorization from the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) to commence these proceedings. Petitioner opposes the motion arguing that NYCHA authorization received prior to the dismissal of a previously dismissed proceeding is valid for the purposes of the instant proceeding.
To evict a section 8 tenant, a landlord must first request and receive written authorization from NYCHA (see, stipulation and order, US Dist Ct, SD NY, 81 Civ 1801, June 9, 1982). Petitioner made a request for such authorization on August 28, 1986. After receiving written authorization on September 8, 1986, a summary proceeding was commenced. That proceeding, however, was dismissed on March 2, 1987 because petitioner failed to attach the written authorization to the pleading as required. (Mau v Stapleton, L&T index No. 102884/86, Mar. 2, 1987.)1
The issue for determination here is whether an authorization, procured as the predicate for a dismissed proceeding, is valid for the purposes of a new proceeding commenced over nine months after the authorization was issued.