The court will first address the request for a stay pursuant to RPAPL 755, as it is the statute more specifically governing this summary eviction proceeding (see People v Avilas, Inc., 29 AD3d 764, 765 [2d Dept 2006]). Pursuant to RPAPL 755 (1) (a):
"Upon proper proof that a notice or order to remove or cease a nuisance or a violation or to make necessary and proper repairs has been made by the municipal department charged with the enforcement of the multiple dwelling law, the multiple residence law, or any other applicable . . . housing code . . . if the condition against which such notice or order is directed is, in the opinion of the court, such as to constructively evict the tenant from a portion of the premises occupied by him [or her], or is, or is likely to become, dangerous to life, health, or safety, the court before which the case is pending may stay{**83 Misc 3d at 757} proceedings to dispossess the tenant for non-payment of rent or any action for rent or rental value."
Here, the court finds that the DHPD vacate order constitutes a "notice or order" covered by the statute.[FN1] There is no dispute that respondent is currently constructively evicted from the premises pursuant to the order. Petitioner asserts that notwithstanding any stay remedy in RPAPL 755 (1), respondent must nonetheless comply with the rent deposit requirement set out in RPAPL 755 (2) to obtain a stay under the statute. RPAPL 755 (2) states that