Moreover, Respondent Kohul stated that she complained to CVR New York (the administrator of her section 8 voucher program) in March 2025 regarding the lack of electricity and heat in her apartment, she notified them of the sewage leakage problem, and she told them that she did not sign the self-certification letter petitioner submitted to CVR. She also stated that she complained to the Town of Cortlandt that sewage was leaking near her apartment on or about July 22, 2025. Respondents aver that since petitioner served her with a Termination Notice, dated August 26, 2025, and in January 2026 with the petition for the instant summary proceeding, this is nothing more than a retaliatory eviction.
Petitioner responds that since a prior holdover summary proceeding commenced prior to the complaints in respondents' motion, this is not a retaliatory eviction.FN2 Additionally, petitioner argues that after the previous summary proceeding was withdrawn, respondents made complaints to Con Edison, CVR and the Town of Cortlandt that were made in "bad faith". Petitioner posits that the complaints were in retaliation for the previous summary proceeding that was filed and withdrawn (See Ardebili affidavit).
A retaliatory eviction is a proper defense in a residential holdover proceeding under the Real Property Law (hereinafter "RPL"). RPL §233-B defines a retaliatory eviction and details what a landlord is prohibited from doing. RPL §223-B states, in pertinent part, as follows:
No landlord of premises or units to which this section is applicable shall serve a notice to quit upon any tenant or commence any action to recover real property or summary proceeding to recover possession of real property in retaliation for: