came into effect. According to Stone, he met with petitioner's agents to explain the conversion
procedures. Stone recalls that petitioner was not compliant in sending the HUD certification
forms even though he asked petitioner to submit them during three separate meetings:
approximately one month after closing, when Stone explained the conversion procedures to
petitioner's agents; approximately six months after the closing, when Stone met personally with
someone from petitioner LLC and informed him that NYCHA had received only 25 of the 50
certification forms for eligible tenants; and again in a second meeting with petitioner's agents.
Stone asserts that petitioner's lack of compliance delayed respondent's subsidy-conversion
process for almost three years. Respondent's certification is dated May 28, 2003, yet NYCHA
did not receive the certification until March 22, 2007. NYCHA began respondent's conversion in
April 2007. According to Stone, petitioner's failure to submit respondent's certification forms
violated the regulatory agreement.
Petitioner argues that respondent has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that petitioner
violated the regulatory agreement by failing to make repairs. Petitioner argues that respondent's
evidence of a failed NYCHA inspection in 2008 is insufficient because petitioner bought the
building in 2004. Petitioner argues that it made the necessary repairs after it bought the building
and that it is conceivable that the current conditions arose well after the initial repairs were made
in compliance with the regulatory agreement. Petitioner argues, therefore, that respondent is not
entitled to summary judgment. Petitioner submits an affidavit from Baruch Singer stating that it
made the repairs in compliance with the agreement.