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

with public dollars, including federal public dollars." (Reply Affirmation of Fernandez, Mar. 5,
2010, � 13.) Even though petitioner used federal money to purchase the subject building, 24 CFR
966.6 lists prohibited lease provisions, and subsection (f) provides that the prohibited lease
provision is "Authorization of the landlord's lawyer to appear in court for the tenant and waive
the right to a trial by jury." (24 CFR 966.6 [f].) Paragraph 17 of respondents' lease states that
"Landlord and Tenant agree not to use their right to a Trial by Jury in any action or proceeding
brought by either, against the other, for any matter, concerning this Lease or the apartment."
(Lease, Ex. C, Affirmation of Gee, Jan 6, 2010.) The CFR does not preclude any waiver of the
jury right. It precludes the landlord's lawyer from acting on behalf of the tenant to waive the jury
right. Thus, the lease contains a valid waiver, and respondents' motion to amend their answers to
include a jury demand is denied. To the extent that respondents seek to reform their lease to
excise their jury waiver clause, they must do so in Supreme Court.

As discussed above, respondents also move to amend their answers to include a fifth
counterclaim and request summary judgment on that counterclaim. The substance of
respondents' fifth counterclaim is:

19. Petitioner began and then discontinued a Petition— Holdover proceeding in this
Court. That is, petitioner filed same petitioner (attached herein as Exhibit B) in April 2009.
Thereafter, in June 2009, petitioner discontinued same proceeding. Respondent suffered injury
and damages as a result of same Petitioner—Holdover proceedings. See Respondent's
Affidavit, paragraph 15, attached herein. Further, the initial lease agreement, subsequently