Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County, October 10, 2017

BOOM!Health Legal Services, Bronx (Emilio Paesano of counsel), for respondent.

Gutman, Mintz, Baker & Sonnenfeldt LLP, New Hyde Park, for petitioner.

Respondent's motion and petitioner's cross motion, consolidated herein for determination, are decided as follows.

Procedural History and Background

This is a holdover proceeding based on allegations that, since May 2016 and on a continuous basis thereafter, respondent has hosted frequent "loud, large parties" with guests and visitors observed in the building's hallways and stairwells engaging in various specified types of "anti-social, disruptive, destructive, dangerous and/or illegal behavior" constituting a nuisance and an objectionable tenancy in violation of respondent's lease and petitioner's Building Rules and Regulations. The predicate "10 Day Notice to Terminate," a copy of which is attached to the petition and incorporated therein by reference at paragraph five, includes descriptions of four specific incidents as well as a prior eviction proceeding based on similar allegations of{**58 Misc 3d at 200} nuisance behavior that was settled with a probationary agreement that ran through February 2016.

The petition describes the premises as "a fair market apartment" for which respondent receives a Section 8 rent subsidy administered by the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR). Both the petition and the predicate notice assert that "DHCR is being notified of this proceeding pursuant to 24 CFR 982.310."

Both parties appear by counsel. Respondent served and filed a verified answer and then moved to dismiss based on her first objection in point of law: petitioner's alleged failure to serve the DHCR with copies of the predicate notice and notice of petition and petition as required by 24 CFR 982.310 (e) (2) (ii) and paragraph 8 (a) and (g) (2) of the "Tenancy Addendum" to the Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contract between petitioner and the DHCR. As the factual basis for this claim, respondent points to the affidavits of service in the court file which do not mention service on the DHCR.

In the alternative, respondent seeks discovery under CPLR 408 on two of her affirmative defenses: defective predicate notice due to lack of the requisite specificity (second affirmative defense); and the claim that "the events described in the Notice of Termination did not occur" (third affirmative defense).^[FN1] Respondent's discovery request is comprised of two proposed notices of deposition: one seeks to take the deposition of an unspecified agent of petitioner and production at that deposition{**58 Misc 3d at 201} pursuant to CPLR 3111 of a witness list as well as documents and videotapes or other recordings relating to petitioner's claims against respondent, which she refutes; the other seeks to take the deposition of petitioner's managing agent Michael [*3]Abreu.

In opposition and by cross motion, petitioner asserts that it did serve copies of its predicate notice and petition on the DHCR, provides copies of its affidavits of service on the DHCR and asks that they be deemed filed timely nunc pro tunc under CPLR 2001 and 2004.

In opposition to respondent's discovery request petitioner points to "the plethora of factual information contained within the notices." (Affirmation in opposition ¶ 28.) Petitioner argues that respondent has not established "ample need," that the motion is not supported by respondent's sworn affidavit, that respondent's claim that she is not in possession of the information she needs to defend against this proceeding is "undermined by the fact that Respondent has lived in the subject premises for 13 years and that the conduct alleged herein all occurred inside the apartment" (id. ¶ 21), and that respondent will have a full opportunity "to cross examine the Petitioner's witnesses, question their veracity and attack any documentary evidence which they may seek to introduce" at trial. (Id. ¶ 29.)

In opposition to petitioner's cross motion and on reply respondent's counsel argues that sections 733 (1) and 735 (2) of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law require petitioner to have filed proof of service on the DHCR when it filed proof of service on respondent to demonstrate compliance with 24 CFR 982.310 (e) (2) (ii). Respondent further argues that this is a "fatal error" which cannot be overlooked or corrected nunc pro tunc and that, in any event, petitioner has still failed to provide proof of service of the notice of petition (as opposed to the petition) on the DHCR. Regarding discovery, respondent argues that no affidavit is required given that the motion is supported by her verified answer, and that she has shown the requisite "ample need" to review the requested information in advance of trial.

In reply, petitioner's counsel argues that 24 CFR 982.310 (e) (2) (ii) does not contain a filing requirement; rather, it only requires owners to provide notice of a pending eviction proceeding to the public housing authority (PHA), in this case the{**58 Misc 3d at 202} DHCR, which petitioner did. Further, RPAPL 733 (1) and 735 (2) relate solely to service on respondents, and filing proof of such service with the court, of the notice of petition and petition to obtain personal jurisdiction.

Dismissal^[FN2]

[1] Where a tenant's rent is subsidized by the federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, 24 CFR 982.310 (e) (2) (ii) requires an owner who is terminating a tenancy to "give the PHA [public housing authority] a copy of any owner eviction notice to the tenant." An "owner eviction notice" is defined as "a notice to vacate, or a complaint or other initial pleading [*4]used under State or local law to commence an eviction action." (24 CFR 982.310 [e] [2] [i].)^[FN3] Failure to give the requisite notice to the PHA is certainly a defense which, if proved at trial or on a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, could result in the dismissal of the proceeding. (See e.g. FAC Renaissance HDFC v Vega, 55 Misc 3d 1210[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50480[U] [Civ Ct, Kings County 2017] [granting tenant's motion to dismiss holdover proceeding under CPLR 3211 (a) (7) due to landlord's failure to give notice of the proceeding to the PHA, New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD)]; Sam Burt Houses, Inc. v Smith, NYLJ 1202731567320 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2015] [granting motion of tenant with Section 8 subsidy administered by HPD to dismiss nonpayment proceeding where landlord admitted that it failed to serve copies of the notices on HPD in any manner whatsoever].)

Further, where the PHA is the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), the second partial consent judgment issued in the case of Williams v New York City Hous. Auth. (US Dist Ct, SD NY, Feb. 2, 1995, Ward, J., 81 Civ 1801) sets forth numerous procedural steps for landlords to follow prior to and in the course of commencing eviction proceedings, including the manner of service of the required eviction notices on {**58 Misc 3d at 203}NYCHA.^[FN4] However, where, as here, the PHA is not NYCHA, there is no prescribed method for serving the PHA with a copy of any such "owner eviction notice."

The decisions respondent cites are inapposite because they involve defective pleadings and/or tenants with NYCHA Section 8 subsidies. For example, in 433 W. Assoc. v Murdock (276 AD2d 360, 360 [1st Dept 2000]), a holdover proceeding against a tenant with a NYCHA Section 8 subsidy, the Court noted that the petition "failed to plead that it and the predicate termination notice were served on the New York City Housing Authority, as required by Federal consent decree and regulation" (citing Williams v New York City Hous. Auth. and 24 CFR 982.310 [e] [2] [ii]).^[FN5] Similarly, the case of Homestead Equities v Washington (176 Misc 2d 459 [Civ Ct, Kings County 1998]) also involved a holdover proceeding against a tenant with a NYCHA Section 8 subsidy and a pleading defect; the court denied the petitioner's request for a default judgment and dismissed the proceeding because, inter alia, the petition failed to allege respondent's Section 8 status or petitioner's compliance with the applicable federal regulations. In Taylor v Shelton (NYLJ 1202783907203 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2017]), while the issue was not a defective pleading, the court granted a motion to dismiss a [*5]holdover proceeding against a tenant with a NYCHA Section 8 subsidy where the landlord failed to prove that it had complied with the service requirements of the Williams second partial consent judgment. In Sam Burt Houses, Inc. v Smith (NYLJ 1202731567320 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2015]), a nonpayment proceeding against a tenant with a Section 8 subsidy administered by HPD, the court granted a motion to dismiss where the landlord admitted that it failed to plead the Section 8 status in the petition and to serve copies of the notices on HPD in any manner whatsoever.{**58 Misc 3d at 204}

Further, there is no requirement, as argued by respondent, that proof of notice to the PHA be filed with the court in the same manner and at the same time as the filing of proof of service of the notice of petition and petition on the respondent. The service and filing provisions of the RPAPL establish the criteria for obtaining personal jurisdiction over the respondent in an eviction proceeding (see generally Dolan v Linnen, 195 Misc 2d 298 [Civ Ct, Richmond County 2003]), and simply do not apply to the federally mandated notice which an owner must "give" to a PHA under 24 CFR 982.310 (e) (2) (ii), a regulation which itself does not prescribe how the landlord is to "give" the requisite notice to the PHA or how the landlord is to prove that it did so.^[FN6]

Accordingly, respondent's motion to dismiss is denied.

Discovery

[2] In summary proceedings, a party requesting discovery must obtain leave of court (CPLR 408), and to obtain such leave, must demonstrate "ample need." (Antillean Holding Co. v Lindley, 76 Misc 2d 1044, 1047 [Civ Ct, NY County 1973].) In determining whether a party has established such "ample need," courts consider a number of factors, not all of which need to be present in every case, including:{**58 Misc 3d at 205}

• whether the movant has asserted facts to establish a claim or defense;

• whether there is a need to determine information directly related to the claim or defense;

• whether the requested disclosure is carefully tailored and likely to clarify the disputed facts;

• whether prejudice will result from granting leave to conduct discovery; and

• whether any prejudice caused by granting a discovery request can be diminished by an order fashioned by the court for that purpose. (See New York Univ. v Farkas, 121 Misc 2d 643, 647 [Civ Ct, NY County 1983].)

Appellate courts have cited New York Univ. v Farkas with approval. (See e.g. Zada Assoc. v Melucci, 49 Misc 3d 140[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51581[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2015]; Ludor Props. L.L.C. v De Brito, 48 Misc 3d 142[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51261[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2015]; 390 W. End Assoc., LP v Fried, 1996 NY Misc LEXIS 645 [App Term, 1st Dept, Sept. 4, 1996, No. 96-222].)

Petitioner alleges in its notice of termination that certain conduct described was "observed" without stating by whom and, regarding the allegations that do not refer to specific dates and times, without stating when. Respondent need not accept petitioner's assertions at face value (Smilow v Ulrich, 11 Misc 3d 179, 186 [Civ Ct, NY County 2005]), and in fact has denied those assertions in her third affirmative defense^[FN7] (verified answer ¶¶ 24, 25), in which she "disputes each allegation in the Notice of Termination" and asserts that "the events described in the Notice of Termination did not occur."

Respondent has established ample need for discovery to obtain information which is necessary to prepare her case against petitioner's claims of nuisance and objectionable behavior. (See e.g. 86 W. Corp. v Singh, 2007 NY Misc LEXIS 8544, 238 NYLJ 108 [Civ Ct, NY County, Nov. 15, 2007, Jackman-Brown, J., L&T 77814/07] [granting tenants' discovery motion where landlord alleged that tenants harbored two pit bull terrier dogs which allegedly attacked and bit a resident's{**58 Misc 3d at 206} dog, attempted to attack the dog of another resident, lunged at building residents in a menacing manner, and roamed freely in the building's common areas].) Petitioner's argument that respondent has not established "ample need" because "the conduct alleged herein all occurred inside the apartment" (affirmation in opposition ¶ 21) is simply incorrect based on its own papers; petitioner's predicate notice describes numerous types of conduct that were allegedly observed in "hallways and stairwells" and "common areas" of the building. Respondent's request is for information that will clarify the facts and directly impact her defense, thereby promoting efficiency in the trial process which is desired in a summary proceeding where an expeditious, yet efficient, disposition on the merits is sought.

Petitioner also alleges that certain conduct "is extremely annoying and disturbing to other tenants," but does not mention the names or apartment numbers of the residents allegedly affected. "The names and addresses of witnesses are discoverable when sought to prepare for trial since these [*6]complaints form the predicate for this holdover proceeding." (86 W. Corp. v Singh, 2007 NY Misc LEXIS 8544, *4; see also e.g. Hoffman v Ro-San Manor, 73 AD2d 207 [1st Dept 1980]; First FGP, Inc. v Douglas, NYLJ, Nov. 12, 1996 at 1, col 1 [Civ Ct, NY County].)

Petitioner's argument that respondent's motion for discovery should be denied because it is not supported by her sworn affidavit is unavailing; under CPLR 105 (u), a verified pleading may be substituted for an affidavit in many circumstances where the latter is required. (A & J Concrete Corp. v Arker, 54 NY2d 870 [1981].) Respondent's verified answer contains a sworn denial of petitioner's factual claims against her and sufficiently supports the merits of her defense for purposes of her discovery motion.

A list of witnesses, deposition of petitioner's managing agent and the opportunity to review any records petitioner has made, collected and/or kept of the alleged complaints about respondent's behavior which underlie this proceeding are narrowly-tailored discovery requests which target the disputed facts.

Conclusion

Respondent's motion is denied to the extent it seeks dismissal of the petition and granted to the extent it seeks discovery. Discovery shall be limited to the deposition of petitioner's managing agent, and the production at that deposition of the items requested in paragraphs "1" through "3" of the proposed notice of deposition.

{**58 Misc 3d at 207}Petitioner's cross motion to deem its affidavits of service on the DHCR duly filed is denied as moot, given the court's finding above that there is no such filing requirement.

Upon completion of discovery, the parties may restore the case to the calendar by stipulation after securing a date from the part clerk.

"The burden of proof is on the party who tenders the issue, because he who affirms must produce the proof to sustain his affirmation. The one who denies may rest on the weakness of his opponent's evidence, but the one who affirms must rest on the strength of his own evidence. As to the allegations of the complaint, the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff, and as to the affirmative defense pleaded in the answer the burden of proof was upon the defendant." (Merzbach v Mayor of City of N.Y., 163 NY 16, 20-21 [1900]; see also e.g. HSBC Bank USA N.A. v Roumiantsev, 39 Misc 3d 1239[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50929[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2013], affd 130 AD3d 983 [2d Dept 2015].)