The petition describes the premises as "a fair market apartment" for which respondent receives a Section 8 rent subsidy administered by the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR). Both the petition and the predicate notice assert that "DHCR is being notified of this proceeding pursuant to 24 CFR 982.310."
Both parties appear by counsel. Respondent served and filed a verified answer and then moved to dismiss based on her first objection in point of law: petitioner's alleged failure to serve the DHCR with copies of the predicate notice and notice of petition and petition as required by 24 CFR 982.310 (e) (2) (ii) and paragraph 8 (a) and (g) (2) of the "Tenancy Addendum" to the Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contract between petitioner and the DHCR. As the factual basis for this claim, respondent points to the affidavits of service in the court file which do not mention service on the DHCR.
In the alternative, respondent seeks discovery under CPLR 408 on two of her affirmative defenses: defective predicate notice due to lack of the requisite specificity (second affirmative defense); and the claim that "the events described in the Notice of Termination did not occur" (third affirmative defense).[FN1] Respondent's discovery request is comprised of two proposed notices of deposition: one seeks to take the deposition of an unspecified agent of petitioner and production at that deposition{**58 Misc 3d at 201} pursuant to CPLR 3111 of a witness list as well as documents and videotapes or other recordings relating to petitioner's claims against respondent, which she refutes; the other seeks to take the deposition of petitioner's managing agent Michael [*3]Abreu.