has Landlord refuted any of the evidence of HRA problems with Tenant's case or her
habitability issues. The 2008 proceedings were therefore not so unjustified as to warrant
a lease violation finding (see Bennett v Mentis, NYLJ, September 13, 2000, at
22, col 1). Only the 2013 proceeding could serve as a proper predicate for chronic
delinquency since it resulted in several Stipulations for payment without habitability
claims. Even if this Court were to deem the two proceedings with incorrect index
numbers as proper predicate proceedings, Tenant has established that by commencing
only three prior proceedings Landlord has failed to allege enough frequency and number
of proceedings to show that Tenant has substantially violated a material obligation of her
seven-year tenancy.
In accordance with the foregoing, Tenant's motion to dismiss the Petition for failure
to sufficiently state a cause of action under a theory of substantial obligation breach is
granted, and the proceeding is hereby dismissed. Landlord's motion to amend the Notice
of Default is denied. The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the Court.
E N T E R:
Dated: August 15, 2014
Bronx, New YorkJ.H.C.
Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C.
118-35 Queens Boulevard
Forest Hills, New York 11375
Adam Shoop, Esq.
The Bronx Defenders
360 East 161st Street
Bronx, New York 10451