another chance to abide by the programs rules and peacefully cohabit in his apartment with
another roommate. Eventually, the problems re-occurred and the petitioner, once again,
commenced a holdover proceeding. That proceeding [L & T #
05620/07] was followed by the commencement of this proceeding and the former
was withdrawn due to a defective petition on the first court date of this matter. Petitioner argues
that the use of the same predicate notice under these circumstances is not defective and does not
vitiate this proceeding and that affirmative defenses 1-4 are without merit.
The petitioner contends that the SSL does not apply to supported housing program providers
and that affirmative defenses 5-9 should be stricken. Petitioner states that it is not an "adult
home" as defined in SSL § 2(25) nor a "residence for adults" as defined in SSL §
2(24) and is not certified by the NYS Department of Social Services. Petitioner asserts that Title
14 of the New York Codes Rules and Regulations [NYCRR] pertaining to OMH operation of
residential programs for adults is inapplicable to the petitioner because it is not licensed pursuant
to article 31 of the Mental Hygiene Law [MHL].
Petitioner further makes the point that the respondent has no privity with the
landlord; that as far as petitioner is concerned, the material changes to the sublease agreement by
the respondent was never accepted by the petitioner and, as such, there is no binding agreement
between them; and that respondent has no property rights in the premises that are protected by
the U.S. Constitution. Petitioner also argues that "because the fact that a corporation has a
contract with a government agency does not rise to the level of state action sufficient to implicate