After submitting a reply, landlord moved to dismiss or sever the counterclaims. In support of his motion, landlord argued, inter alia, that Kaplan’s institution of civil litigation did not provide a basis for a claim of retaliatory eviction (citing Pezzolanella v Galloway, 132 Misc 2d 429) and that the retaliatory-eviction statute is by its terms inapplicable to owner-occupied dwellings with fewer than four residential units (Real Property Law § 223-b [6]). Landlord also argued that the counterclaim *484based on the alleged deprivation of heat, hot water and electricity should be dismissed or severed because landlord was not seeking to recover rent or damages. Finally, landlord argued respondents have no standing to impose municipal code violations.