Further, a landlord cannot be awarded possession where a valid notice of termination has not been served (see Ellivkroy Realty Corp. v HDP 86 Sponsor Corp., 162 AD2d 238 [1st Dept 1990]). Lastly, no termination of a lease for a subsidized unit "shall be valid unless it is in accordance with the provisions of [24 CFR] 247.4" (24 CFR 247.3 [a]; see Matter of Metro Plaza Apts., Inc. v Buchanan, 204 AD3d 45, 49 [3d Dept 2022]).
The petitioner argues waiver yet none of the cases cited by the petitioner present a circumstance where a general denial was deemed a waiver of federal regulatory requirements, specifically where the issue was raised at trial. In 433 W. Assoc. v Murdock (276 AD2d 360 [1st Dept 2000]), Murdock recognized 433 West Associates' prima facie case. In Priel v Priel (NYLJ, Mar. 5, 1993 at 25 [App Term, 1st Dept]) the movant did not raise the issue with service of predicate notice until after reargument. In Mehta v Karrow (NYLJ, Apr. 8, 1993, at 23 [App Term, 1st Dept]), Karrow raised the issue on a "post-eviction motion to vacate the final judgment, approximately one year after the entry of judgment," after a full trial.
The petitioner also cites W54-7 LLC v Schick (14 Misc 3d 49, 50 [App Term, 1st Dept 2006]) for the proposition that where a tenant appears by legal counsel and fails to raise specific defects about a predicate notice before the commencement of trial, the court cannot consider those alleged defects. The petitioner's reliance on this case is misguided. To the contrary Schick (at 50) reiterates