violated a substantial obligation' of the tenancy" (Adams Tower Ltd. Partnership v
Richter, 186 Misc 2d 620, 621—622 [AT 1st Dept 2000], citing Sharp v
Norwood, 89 NY2d 1068, 1069 [1997]). This proceeding was not brought upon the
ground of nuisance, which requires a showing of "aggravating circumstances" (Sharp
v Norwood, supra at 1069), but rather upon the allegation that Tenant's
long-term, "chronic and systematic" delinquency in timely paying the rent as it became
due breached a material leasehold obligation. The number and frequency of nonpayment
proceedings are not the only criteria judicially considered when determining whether a
substantial obligation has been violated since "the number of nonpayment actions
commenced is relevant only in the context of the entire circumstances surrounding the
alleged withholding of rent" (Greene v Stone, 160 AD2d 367, 368 [1st Dept
1990]; see Lincoln Place 1226 Prop., LLC v Goins, NYLJ, Oct. 23, 2013, at 30,
col 1 [Kings Civil 2013]). The breach must also be firmly documented in the record
either by the absence of bona fide habitability claims or any dispute as to the amount of
rent owed raised during the proceedings (see Adams Tower Ltd. Partnership v
Richter, 186 Misc 2d at 620; Bennett v Mentis, NYLJ, Sept. 13, 2000, at 22,
col 1 [AT 1st 2000]). "A temporary financial embarrassment may excuse isolated
instances of late payment, but inability to pay cannot excuse chronic and continuing
delinquency" (id. [nine nonpayment [*3]proceedings in three years]; see 2564 Co. v
D'Addario, 35 Misc 2d 176 [AT 1st Dept 1961] [eleven nonpayments in almost two
years]).
Applying these legal principles to the matter at bar, Tenant has demonstrated that
Landlord failed to sufficiently establish a prima facie showing of a substantial obligation