where CBHS deems such action appropriate.
The participants are directed to follow the four (4) steps set forth on page 9 of the Manual "if
you have a complaint, problem or question on program policy or procedure." There is no
statement in the respondent's affidavit that he followed these established guidelines in making his
complaints.
With respect to the respondent's claim that he could "repair and deduct" the cost of repairs
for a broken lock, he was told, in no uncertain terms, that he could not do so and that petitioner
would not accept any payments for rent unless made in full. Instead, respondent states he has "all
the accrued rent money since that time [November 2006] (including all of November) available
in a bank account."
(Resp. Affidavit, ¶ 8) Therefore, not only did the respondent retain the cost for
the lock, but his entire rent as well, which, as stated above, is specifically proscribed by RPL
§ 223-b.
It is the opinion of the Court that the affirmative defense of retaliatory eviction has no merit
in this matter.
Regarding the respondent's request for discovery, the Court finds that it is overly broad and
that based on the representations of the petitioner that there are no contracts with OMH or federal
funds given to the petitioner there is nothing more that need be discovered in addition to all the
documents already provided. Regarding correspondence between the respondent and petitioner,
including e-mails, these items are not in the exclusive possession and control of the petitioner
and respondent should have retained his own copies. Therefore, the branch of the motion seeking
discovery is denied.
Based on the foregoing, the respondent's motion to dismiss this proceeding is denied,