Co. v Wright, 42 Misc 3d 1214[A]).
Only the six additional proceedings against Tenant can be legally relied upon in
examining the sufficiency of the Landlord's claim of chronic rent delinquency. In
particular, the two 2009 nonpayment proceedings commenced against Tenant under
Index Nos. 010454/2009 and 068829/2009, were both settled on their first court
appearances of March 23, 2009 and December 23, 2009, respectively, by so-ordered
Stipulations of Settlement, wherein Tenant consented to the entry of final judgments and
payment schedules, without any mention of habitability or repairs issues. It was only after
Tenant's subsequent Order to Show Cause asking for more time to pay based on domestic
violence allegations, that the Court apparently sua sponte added repairs and access dates
to the proceeding. At no time were repairs mentioned in the second 2009 proceeding.
Similarly, no repair issues were mentioned in the two initial Stipulations of Settlement,
dated September 27, 2010 and December 10, 2010, respectively, settling the 2010
nonpayment proceeding under Index No. 050360/2010. Thereafter, for the first time,
repairs were mentioned following an Order to Show Cause in a Stipulation dated January
11, 2011, giving her additional time to pay and setting access dates for repairs in that
proceeding.
It is true, though, that Tenant commenced a Housing Part proceeding against
the Landlord in 2011, but she then waited until the commencement of the subsequent
2012 nonpayment proceeding by Landlord under Index No. 02957/2012, to pay her rent
on its return date of January [*4]24, 2012 and to schedule
access dates for unspecified repairs. While Tenant did allege the need for repairs to her
apartment in the case under Index No. 40876/2012, it took her from the commencement