If the movant meets the burden of showing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the opposing party must demonstrate that there is an issue requiring trial (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 560 [1980]; cf. Exit Empire Realty v Zilelian, 137 AD3d 742, 743 [2d Dept 2016] [holding that if the movant fails to meet its burden, courts must deny the motion even when the motion is unopposed]).
However, neither the shadowy semblance of an issue nor bald conclusory assertions are sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (S.J. Capelin Assoc. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338, 341 [1974]; Gelb v Bucknell Press, 69 AD2d 829, 830 [2d Dept 1979]).
In the instant case the key facts are undisputed.
Petitioner sent respondent a renewal lease offer in April of 2023 and did not notify HPD of this proceeding. HPD administers respondent's Section 8 subsidy.
Respondent has moved for summary judgment on the basis that the renewal lease offer vitiated the predicate notice and that petitioner needed to notify HPD of the instant proceeding.
The court will address each point in turn.
a. Did the renewal lease offer vitiate the predicate notice?
If a landlord serves a tenant with a renewal lease offer, the offer will often vitiate a notice of termination (see e.g. Ambassador Realty Co. v Wachtel, 139 Misc 2d 965 [Civ Ct, Queens County 1988]).
There are situations where the rent regulatory laws require a landlord to serve a renewal lease. These lease offers, which are made solely because of a legal obligation to [*3]make an offer, do not always vitiate notices of termination. In other words, since the rent regulatory laws require landlords to serve renewal leases, a renewal offer will not vitiate a predicate notice in every type of holdover.