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

Ring v Arts Intl, 7 Misc 3d at 881.) In Lucas, the court held that although the
respondent's tax overcharge counterclaim was intertwined "to the extent that the overpayment
may offset the claim," because the claim would require the Housing Part to conduct hearings on
the tax certiorari proceedings, the counterclaim should be severed to preserve the integrity of the
summary proceeding. (Id.)
[*6]
Here, respondents' counterclaims for overcharge relate
back to alleged violations of the Rent Stabilization Code between the prior landlord and
respondent Ming in 1999 and between the prior landlord and a prior tenant in 2002 for
respondent Chen. Petitioner's claim for nonpayment of rent dates back one year to April 2009.
Although a finding in respondents' favor might allow an abatement in the amount of rent due to
petitioner, respondents' counterclaims for overcharge are not inextricably intertwined with
petitioner's current entitlement to rent. Further, allowing respondents' counterclaims would
require this court to engage in complicated and protracted proceedings that would bog down this
court's judicial resources. Especially because these exact allegations are the subject matter of a
pending action in the Supreme Court, respondents are not prejudiced by the dismissal of their
counterclaim for alleged overcharge. Thus, respondents' argument that the four-year statute of
limitations for raising an overcharge complaint should not apply is now academic in this
proceeding and must be taken up in the Supreme Court action.

Respondents' counterclaims for diminution of services and breach of contract regarding
petitioner's alleged failure to provide three bedrooms are arguably inextricably intertwined with