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 respondent—the service
and filing provisions of the RPAPL establish the criteria for obtaining
personal jurisdiction over the respondent in an eviction proceeding, but do
not apply to the federally mandated notice that an owner must give to a PHA
under 24 CFR 982.310 (e) (2) (ii).
Public Housing — Termination of Tenancy — Nuisance — Discov-
ery by Tenant
2. In a holdover proceeding to terminate respondent’s tenancy of an apart-
ment based on alleged nuisance and objectionable behavior—respondent’s
hosting of 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’’—
respondent established ample need for discovery to obtain information that
was necessary to prepare her case against petitioner landlord’s claims. In a
summary proceeding, a party requesting discovery must obtain leave of court
and demonstrate ample need (see CPLR 408). Here, the notice of termination
did not state who observed certain alleged conduct or, in some instances,
when those observations were made. Petitioner also alleged that certain
conduct was ‘‘extremely annoying and disturbing to other tenants,’’ but did
not mention the names or apartment numbers of the residents allegedly af-
fected. Respondent’s verified answer contained a sworn denial of petitioner’s
factual claims against her and sufficiently supported the merits of her defense
for purposes of her discovery motion. Moreover, a list of witnesses, deposition
of petitioner’s managing agent and the opportunity to review any records