Chinatown Preserv. HDFC v Yu Hua Chen, 2010 NY Slip Op 50730(U) [27 Misc 3d 1213(A)]

wall previously in response to petitioner's request and was permitted to stay after the inspection.
In November 2009, the DOB issued a second violation because respondent Chen reinstalled
bunk [*2]beds that formed an illegal partition.

A. Denial of Respondents' Motions to Dismiss Nonpayment Petition.

Along with several other tenants in the subject building, respondents commenced an action
in September 2009 in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, alleging that
petitioner had breached respondents' leases. According to respondents, petitioner failed to
provide promised services by not providing three bedrooms and that the petitioner engaged in
fraud by engaging in deceptive trade practices to overcharge them. Respondents moved to
dismiss or stay their nonpayment petitions in light of the ongoing Supreme Court action. On
October 23, 2009, the Honorable David Cohen, in a short written decision, denied both
respondents' motions to dismiss the nonpayment petitions. Judge Cohen found that respondents
failed to produce any documentary evidence entitling them to a dismissal and that the
nonpayment petition in Housing Court and the pending action in Supreme Court are not
identical.

B. Petitioner's Pending Cross-Motion to Dismiss Respondents'
Counterclaims.

Respondents served verified answers on November 9, 2009, including counterclaims in the
answer. The context of the counterclaims is essentially the same as those issues raised in the
Supreme Court action. The counterclaims allege that petitioner and/or petitioner's predecessor in
interest breached the lease by failing to provide three bedrooms (Answer, Nov. 9, 2009, ¶
4); overcharged respondents by violating the rent stabilization laws and by charging a broker fee