of the case in July 2012 until December 2012 to completely pay her arrears and for the
case to be discontinued. There was no mention of repairs other than in the first
Stipulation of that proceeding. Finally, the 2013 nonpayment proceeding was answered
and settled by a Stipulation of Settlement requiring repairs. In the course of that
proceeding, an HPD inspection was scheduled which recorded nine violations in the
apartment.
Under these factually intense circumstances, although Tenant has preliminarily
demonstrated that most of the nonpayment proceedings were not so unjustified as to
warrant a lease violation finding (see Bennett v Mentis, NYLJ, September 13,
2000, at 22, col 1 [AT 1st Dept 2000]), Landlord has raised triable issues of fact
supporting its chronic rent delinquency claim against Tenant. Via admissible evidence,
Landlord has sufficiently demonstrated that Tenant's failure to pay rent in those
proceeding was prompted mostly — if not, solely — by her lack of funds.
Contrary to her arguments, Tenant's habitability claims would not appear to have clearly
"precipitate[d] the withholding of rent" (Hudson St. Equities v Circhi, 9 Misc 3d 138[A]), but rather
were never mentioned or seemed to have been an afterthought raised during the
pendency of the proceedings. It is up to the trial court to determine whether Landlord has
alleged enough frequency and number of proceedings to show that Tenant has
substantially violated a material obligation of her 28-year tenancy.
In accordance with the foregoing, Tenant's motion for summary judgment dismissing
the instant chronic rent delinquency proceeding is denied, and the matter is hereby
referred for an immediate trial to the Trial Part on November 10, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. That