rights protected under the Constitution..." (Notice of Cross Motion, Attorney Affirmation,
¶ 44)
Lastly, the petitioner refutes the respondent's defenses of retaliatory eviction and breach of
the warranty of habitability. Petitioner states that there were no complaints to any governmental
agency regarding the respondent's former roommates or rent impairing conditions; that the
respondent withheld his rent money and also refused the petitioner access to his apartment to
make repairs; and that the breach of warranty of habitability is not a defense to a holdover
proceeding.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW
In deciding the motion and cross-motion the Court will discuss the three
prevalent issues that the respondent has raised in defense of this proceeding: 1) whether a new
predicate notice was required to commence this proceeding in lieu of utilizing the same notice of
termination that initiated the prior holdover proceeding that was withdrawn on the first day this
matter was noticed to be heard; 2) whether the petitioner's business is sufficiently entwined with
governmental agencies that it is required to follow all governmental rules and regulations
regarding the termination of the respondent's tenancy, service of notices and any necessary plans
for discharge; and 3) whether the actions of the petitioner were retaliatory in nature.
PREDICATE NOTICE:
The thirty day notice of termination, dated December 21, 2006, which predicated the [*5]commencement of the prior holdover proceeding [L & T #
56520/07] was properly utilized in order to commence this holdover proceeding.
Recognizing that the petition in the first proceeding was defective, the petitioner commenced this
case and made it returnable on the same adjourned date of the then pending matter. On that date,