an order based on default was signed, followed by one more court appearance on May 4, 2017,
when a motion to restore was settled.
Footnote 6:See fn 5, supra.
Footnote 7:The alleged defectiveness of the
predicate notice and Petition are not "jurisdictional defenses" as they do not implicate the court's
subject matter jurisdiction. 433 West Assocs v Murdock (276 AD2d 360, 360-361, 715
NYS2d 6, 8 [1st Dep't 2000]).
Footnote 8:See fn 3, supra.
Footnote 9:While Respondent testified that
she had requested and been denied permission to add her college student nephew to her
household, as discussed above she provided no details from which this court could conclude
either that this was a bona fide request or that such an addition to the household would have
vitiated Petitioner's determination that she was over-housed.
Footnote 10:Respondent's conclusion that
there was a "busted window" in the bedroom, based on her observation of a piece of plywood
leaning against it, proved to be incorrect. Not only did the March 1, 2017 inspection report
contain no violations for any window conditions, but Petitioner's superintendent credibly
explained that the only thing wrong with the bedroom window was a balance that needed to be
repaired; the plywood had been placed there to block light that was bothering a neighbor.