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

production of documents is completed; and included a jury demand in their amended answers.
Respondent Chen also asked in limine that the November 2009 DOB violation be excluded at
trial along with evidence concerning respondent Chen's alleged construction of bunk beds
because respondent Chen contends that this evidence would be substantially prejudicial.

On February 5, 2010, respondent Ming withdrew his motion to conduct disclosure without
prejudice. Respondent Chen's motion to conduct disclosure is still pending and must be decided.

E. Respondents' Pending Motions for Summary Judgment and to Amend
Answers.

On March 5, 2010, respondents moved for summary judgment on their counterclaims for
breach of lease, diminution of services, fraud, and overcharge. Petitioner argues that summary
judgment was not appropriate. According to petitioner, material issues of fact are in dispute, and
respondents failed to meet their burden to satisfy summary judgment.

Respondents also moved for leave to file an amended answer to include a jury demand [*4]and allegations that petitioner filed a holdover petition against
respondents in April 2009 that was discontinued after petitioner allegedly anonymously called
the DOB to report the illegal partition walls. Respondents additionally request summary
judgment granting respondent attorney fees from the April 2009 holdover from petitioner.

F. Stipulation Agreements.

On January 6, 2010, the parties entered a stipulation for respondents' payment without
prejudice of the full amount of rent allegedly due to petitioner as of January 31, 2010, to be held
by respondent's attorney.

II. Petitioner's Cross-Motion to Dismiss or Sever Respondents'
Counterclaims.

Petitioner's argument that the Housing Part lacks jurisdiction over respondents'