of service was filed with the court. Petitioner's President, Mr. Palmiotto, testified that
Respondent is a Section 8 tenant and that Petitioner collected portion of the monthly rent directly
from Section 8 for over 2 years -at least since 2019. Thus, there is no dispute that Petitioner knew
of Respondent's section 8 regulatory status at the time it filed the petition. The pleading of the
Section 8 regulatory status is required to determine the scope of the rights of the parties as well as
the way the court proceeds with the action. This is especially relevant here where Respondent
dispute being in arrears for her share of the Section 8 rent and where the alleged poor conditions
in the apartment implicate Section 8 inspection standards.
A petition that failed to plead the Section 8 status of the tenancy and did not comply with
Section 8 regulatory scheme was dismissed as defective, even when the tenant failed to appear.
See Homestead Equities v Washington, 176 Misc 2d 459; 672 N.Y.S.2d 980, NY Slip
Op. 98225, Civ.Ct. NYC, Kings County (1998) (holding that on a motion for a default judgment
the court, sua sponte, is obliged to review the sufficiency of the petition to determine
whether the pleadings are sufficient). See also, P.S. Street F.L.P v. Demos, 17 Misc 3d 1139(A), Civ. Ct. NYC,
Kings County (2007).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that the Petition contains
fundamental misstatements and omissions necessitating dismissal of the proceeding. See Migliaccio v Childs, 65 Misc 3d
131 (A) [2d Dept. 2019]; Brookwood Coram I, LLC v Oliva, 47 Misc 3d 140(A),
[App. Term 2d Dept. 2012]; Citron v Pandis, 34 Misc 3d 152 (A) [2d Dept. 2012];
Dwyer v Wimbush, 62 Misc 3d 1213 (A) (City Ct. Mt. Vernon 2019]); Levister Redevelopment v. Pena, 69