The Bronx Defenders then filed a Notice of Appearance for Wilson.
Respondent now files the instant application seeking inter alia: dismissal of the subject-proceeding or in the alternative, Respondent leave to file an Answer ("Respondent's Motion").
In support of Respondent's Motion, Respondent asserts the Petition should be dismissed because of Petitioner's acceptance of checks during the "window period." Petitioner's alleges a failure to serve a Good Cause Eviction Law Notice ("GCEL Notice") with the Notice of Termination and Petition, improper service of the Petition.
Concurrent with the filing of Respondent's Motion, Respondent filed a Judicial Subpoena Duces Tecum, directing Petitioner to provide various records related to Respondent's tenancy of the subject-premises (the "Respondent's Subpoena").
Thereafter, Petitioner moved by Order to Show Cause to quash Respondent's Subpoena, alleging Respondent's Subpoena is a discovery demand, and that it should be quashed because [*2]Respondent's Motion is pending ("Petitioner's OSC").
In opposition to Respondent's Motion, Petitioner alleges that Respondent's counsel filed a supplemental affirmation without leave of court; that Respondent's affirmation is not in compliance with CPLR 2106; that Petitioner did not vitiate the termination notice through acceptance of DSS payments; that Petitioner was not required to serve a GCEL Notice with the Notice of Termination; that the Petition was properly served on Respondent; and that portions of the Answer should be barred as they lack merit.
In opposition to Petitioner's OSC, Respondent alleges that Respondent's Subpoena seeks relevant information that is important for trial.
The GCEL Notice