as to the basis of the chronic nonpayment holdover proceeding. Specifically, Landlord
argues that the prior proceedings were necessitated by Tenant's failure to timely pay the
rent arrears only because she lacked the financial wherewithal to cover the rent, not
because she was withholding the rent due to habitability or repairs issues. Supporting its
arguments, Landlord provides documentary evidence and an affidavit from the Premises
agent, Ivette Moss, who affirms, among other things, that Tenant had never provided
notice to her office of any habitability issues in her apartment prior to the commencement
of the several nonpayment proceedings, and that she has never obtained a rent abatement
in those proceedings. This Court agrees with Landlord in part.
"A history of repeated nonpayment proceedings brought to collect
chronically late rental payments supports an eviction proceeding on the ground that the
tenant has 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]; see Hudson St. Equities v
Circhi, 9 Misc 3d 138[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51764[U] [AT 1st Dept]). The
instant proceeding was brought on the ground that Tenant's long-term, "chronic and
systematic" [*3]delinquency in timely paying her rent as
it became due breached a substantial leasehold obligation (see Rent Stabilization
Code § 2524.3[a]). 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"