Defendants contend that the relevant provisions of RPAPL article 7 and Real Property Law article 7 provide a procedural groundwork for eviction proceedings, while Local Law F provides the substantive conditions necessary for those evictions to take place and, as a result, the local law is not in conflict with state law. In drawing such a distinction, defendants misapprehend the standard.[FN1] "Although a local government is constitutionally empowered to enact local laws relating to the welfare of its citizens through its police power, . . . [c]onflict preemption prohibits a local government from adopting a law that is inconsistent with state law" (People v Torres, 37 NY3d 256, 265 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Norse Energy Corp. USA v Town of Dryden, 108 AD3d 25, 37 [3d Dept 2013], affd 23 NY3d 728 [2014]; Matter of Zorn v Howe, 276 AD2d 51, 54-55 [3d Dept 2000]). "[T]he fact that both the state and local laws seek to regulate the same subject matter does not in and of itself give rise to an express conflict" (Garcia v New York City Dept. of [*2]Health & Mental Hygiene, 31 NY3d 601, 617 [2018] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted]; see Matter of Zorn v Howe, 276 AD2d at 55). Instead, a party alleging conflict preemption must show "that the local law permits conduct prohibited by State law, prohibits conduct specifically permitted by State law or imposes restrictions on rights granted by the State" (Matter of Zorn v Howe, 276 AD2d at 55; see People v Torres, 37 NY3d at 268).