It is well settled that a "history of repeated nonpayment proceedings brought to collect chronically late rental payments supports an eviction proceeding on the ground that the tenant has violated a substantial obligation of the tenancy" (Adam's Tower Ltd. Partnership v Richter, 186 Misc 2d 620, 621-622 [App Term, 1st Dept 2000], citing Sharp v Norwood, 89 NY2d 1068, 1069 [1997]). However the "number of nonpayment actions commenced is relevant only in the context of the entire circumstances surrounding the alleged withholding of rent" (Greene v Stone, 160 AD2d 367, 368 [1990]). Where "bona fide claims are shown to exist that an apartment is in need of repairs, precipitating the withholding of rent, a holdover petition based upon chronic nonpayment will not lie" (Hudson St. Equities v Circhi, 9 Misc 3d 138[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51764[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2005]; see also Chama Holding Corp. v Taylor, 37 Misc 3d 70 [App Term, 1st Dept 2012]).