Further, where the PHA is the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), the second partial consent judgment issued in the case of Williams v New York City Hous. Auth. (US Dist Ct, SD NY, Feb. 2, 1995, Ward, J., 81 Civ 1801) sets forth numerous procedural steps for landlords to follow prior to and in the course of commencing eviction proceedings, including the manner of service of the required eviction notices on {**58 Misc 3d at 203}NYCHA.[FN4] However, where, as here, the PHA is not NYCHA, there is no prescribed method for serving the PHA with a copy of any such "owner eviction notice."
The decisions respondent cites are inapposite because they involve defective pleadings and/or tenants with NYCHA Section 8 subsidies. For example, in 433 W. Assoc. v Murdock (276 AD2d 360, 360 [1st Dept 2000]), a holdover proceeding against a tenant with a NYCHA Section 8 subsidy, the Court noted that the petition "failed to plead that it and the predicate termination notice were served on the New York City Housing Authority, as required by Federal consent decree and regulation" (citing Williams v New York City Hous. Auth. and 24 CFR 982.310 [e] [2] [ii]).[FN5] Similarly, the case of Homestead Equities v Washington (176 Misc 2d 459 [Civ Ct, Kings County 1998]) also involved a holdover proceeding against a tenant with a NYCHA Section 8 subsidy and a pleading defect; the court denied the petitioner's request for a default judgment and dismissed the proceeding because, inter alia, the petition failed to allege respondent's Section 8 status or petitioner's compliance with the applicable federal regulations. In Taylor v Shelton (NYLJ 1202783907203 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2017]), while the issue was not a defective pleading, the court granted a motion to dismiss a [*5]holdover proceeding agains