affirmative representations that it is not an agent of the state and that there is currently no binding
sublease agreement in effect between the parties, coupled with the respondent's failure to provide
proof that he has a protected right or interest in the subject premises, warrants a finding that no
Constitutional rights of due process have been violated. (See, Helping Out People
Everywhere, aka HOPE, v. Deich, 155 Misc 2d 707, 589 NYS2d 744, aff'd 160 Misc 2d
1052, 615 NYS2d 215 (AT 2nd Dept.)
RETALIATORY EVICTION
Real Property Law ["RPL"] §223-b [Retaliation by landlord against tenant] sets forth
the three protected acts by a tenant [FN3] for which a landlord is prohibited from
commencing any summary proceeding to recover possession of real property in retaliation
thereof:
a) a good faith complaint to a governmental agency of health or safety violations;
b) action taken to enforce rights under a lease or rental agreement; and
c) a tenant's participation in activities of a tenant's association.
RPL § 223-b.5. creates a rebuttable presumption that the landlord is acting in
retaliation if a summary proceeding is commenced within six months after the tenant: a) makes a
good faith complaint about health or safety violations to a government agency; b) commences a
court or administrative proceeding to enforce rights; or c) received a judgment in his or her favor
for retaliation in a prior action between the parties.
Notwithstanding a tenant's defense of retaliatory eviction, the statute does not relieve the
tenant of the obligation to pay the rent for which the tenant is liable.
Applying the above requirements of this affirmative defense to the case at bar, it is clear that