In opposition to petitioner's cross motion and on reply respondent's counsel argues that sections 733 (1) and 735 (2) of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law require petitioner to have filed proof of service on the DHCR when it filed proof of service on respondent to demonstrate compliance with 24 CFR 982.310 (e) (2) (ii). Respondent further argues that this is a "fatal error" which cannot be overlooked or corrected nunc pro tunc and that, in any event, petitioner has still failed to provide proof of service of the notice of petition (as opposed to the petition) on the DHCR. Regarding discovery, respondent argues that no affidavit is required given that the motion is supported by her verified answer, and that she has shown the requisite "ample need" to review the requested information in advance of trial.
In reply, petitioner's counsel argues that 24 CFR 982.310 (e) (2) (ii) does not contain a filing requirement; rather, it only requires owners to provide notice of a pending eviction proceeding to the public housing authority (PHA), in this case the{**58 Misc 3d at 202} DHCR, which petitioner did. Further, RPAPL 733 (1) and 735 (2) relate solely to service on respondents, and filing proof of such service with the court, of the notice of petition and petition to obtain personal jurisdiction.
Dismissal[FN2]