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]).
A review of the record indicates that tenant demonstrated that, of the seven nonpayment proceedings landlord alleges had been commenced against tenant between 2011 and 2014, three had been discontinued or not pursued, and these proceedings were therefore correctly not charged against tenant by the Civil Court (see Chama Holding Corp., 37 Misc 3d 70). Additionally, another proceeding involving a bona fide claim by tenant regarding the warranty of habitability was correctly not charged against tenant.