Specifically, the 2008 nonpayment proceedings commenced against Tenant under
Index Nos. 014629/2008 and 019581/2008, were both duly answered by her pro se
asserting a general denial and an affirmative defense that there were "conditions in the
apartment which need[ed] to be repaired." The initial proceeding was discontinued by
Landlord prior to any appearance; and the second proceeding, which involved the same
arrears, was settled on the first court appearance of April 22, 2008 by a so-ordered
Stipulation of Settlement, which provided payment and repairs schedules, including
extermination for a mice infestation. Four separate Stipulations followed after Tenant
filed three Orders to Show Cause asking for more time, based on disruptions of her
public assistance by the Human Resources Administration ("HRA"), and concluded with
a vacatur of the Judgment and Warrant on October 9, 2008. Similarly, Tenant asserted a
payment defense to the 2013 proceeding, under Index No. 13139/2013, which was
settled with an initial Stipulation of Settlement requiring Tenant to pay arrears amounting
to $2,954.95 up to April 2013. The payment of the arrears was again delayed due to
HRA agency errors and delays as well as Landlord's failure to provide its tax
identification number to the agencies involved, but Tenant eventually secured assistance
and paid the arrears, prompting the discontinuance of that proceeding on September 30,
2013.
This Court is thus faced with the fact that the 2008 nonpayment cases were either
discontinued by Landlord or settled by a Stipulation of Settlement requiring repairs, and
that the 2013 proceeding resulted in an interim Stipulation affording time to pay arrears,
which were [*4]eventually paid by several agencies. Nor