sired in a summary proceeding where an expeditious, yet efficient, disposition on the merits is sought.
Petitioner also alleges that certain conduct "is extremely annoying and disturbing to other tenants," but does not mention the names or apartment numbers of the residents allegedly affected. "The names and addresses of witnesses are discoverable when sought to prepare for trial since these [*6]complaints form the predicate for this holdover proceeding." (86 W. Corp. v Singh, 2007 NY Misc LEXIS 8544, *4; see also e.g. Hoffman v Ro-San Manor, 73 AD2d 207 [1st Dept 1980]; First FGP, Inc. v Douglas, NYLJ, Nov. 12, 1996 at 1, col 1 [Civ Ct, NY County].)
Petitioner's argument that respondent's motion for discovery should be denied because it is not supported by her sworn affidavit is unavailing; under CPLR 105 (u), a verified pleading may be substituted for an affidavit in many circumstances where the latter is required. (A & J Concrete Corp. v Arker, 54 NY2d 870 [1981].) Respondent's verified answer contains a sworn denial of petitioner's factual claims against her and sufficiently supports the merits of her defense for purposes of her discovery motion.
A list of witnesses, deposition of petitioner's managing agent and the opportunity to review any records petitioner has made, collected and/or kept of the alleged complaints about respondent's behavior which underlie this proceeding are narrowly-tailored discovery requests which target the disputed facts.
Conclusion