erative conversion. On August 2, 2006, Judge Jackman-Brown denied tenant's motion to dismiss and granted petitioner's cross-motion to amend the petition and gave tenant leave to file her answer within 10 days of that decision. Respondent's attorney served the answer on or about August 8, 2006 and filed same on August 9, 2006 (see affirmation of service by respondent's attorney and stamp of the Clerk's Office annexed to respondent's answer).
Respondent now moves for summary judgment dismissing the petition on the ground that the subject premises in located in an HDFC that obtained the building from the City of New York, subject to a deed that requires continuing City oversight and regulation through 2029, and that the government is sufficiently entwined with the subject premises to trigger constitutional due process protections before petitioner may terminate respondent's tenancy. As basis for her motion, respondent's attorney cites 512 East 11th Street HDFC v Grimmet, 181 AD2d 488 (1st Dept 1992) and 157 West 123rd St. Tenants Assn v Hickson, 142 Misc 2d 984 (App Term, 1st Dept 1989).