81822/04]. At that time respondent was represented by a guardian ad litem and
consented to vacate the premises by November 30, 2004. Thereafter the Urban Justice Center
["UJC"], which is currently representing the respondent in the case at bar, made an application to
vacate the stipulation and requested additional time for the respondent to vacate as the UJC
claimed to be looking for suitable housing for him. On January 20, 2005, the court [Hoyos, J.]
denied the application and vacated all stays. Although the petitioner was then allowed to go
forward with an eviction, it opted to give the respondent another opportunity to rectify his
conduct. As a result of the alleged continued conduct of the respondent the present proceeding
was commenced with the service of a notice of termination dated December 21, 2006.
RESPONDENT'S MOTION [FN2] AND PETITIONER'S CROSS
MOTION
The respondent moves for dismissal of this proceeding or, in the alternative,
leave to file an amended answer and for discovery. The petitioner seeks an order granting the
petition, use and occupancy and striking the defenses and counterclaims.
The positions of the parties can be summed up as follows:
RESPONDENT:
[*3]
The respondent argues that this proceeding should be
dismissed, in the first instance, because the petitioner commenced two holdover proceedings
against him simultaneously. The first proceeding [L & T #
56520/07] was commenced on February 1, 2007. This proceeding was commenced
on February 22, 2007. On the first scheduled date for this proceeding, the petitioner withdrew the
earlier commenced holdover proceeding. Both proceedings rely on the same predicate notice of
termination dated December 21, 2006. Respondent claims, and petitioner concedes, that no new