predicate notice was created for this proceeding and that he never received said notice.
The respondent maintains that the petitioner has no standing to commence this proceeding
because it did not follow the requirements of the Social Services Law ["SSL"] § 461-h in
that the petitioner: a) did not serve the proper parties; b) did not set forth specific reasons for
termination; c) did not provide respondent with a list of free legal services, etc.; and d) did not
serve a notice of a hearing or provide a hearing to the respondent. Thus, it is alleged that the
respondent's tenancy was either not terminated or was terminated without due process.
The respondent claims that the petitioner commenced this proceeding prior to the
termination of his residency agreement and that it is retaliatory in nature.
Finally, the respondent avers that his due process rights were violated due to government
entwining with the petitioner, relying on 512 E 11 Street HDFC v. Grimmet, 181 AD2nd
488, 581 NYS2d 24 (AD 1st Dept., 1992). The respondent argues that the petitioner operates
under the auspices of the OMH which funds the petitioner and, therefore, OMH must be
contacted prior to the removal of residents from the program. Further, the petitioner must have
good cause for the removal because the petitioner is, in effect, operating as a governmental
agency. Since the petitioner is funded and supported by OMH public funds for the purpose of
providing permanence in the treatment and housing for individuals with psychiatric disabilities,
the respondent contends that a no-cause holdover without the required discharge planning
violates due process.
Alternatively, the respondent seeks an order to file an amended answer and for discovery,