t a tenant with a NYCHA Section 8 subsidy where the landlord failed to prove that it had complied with the service requirements of the Williams second partial consent judgment. In Sam Burt Houses, Inc. v Smith (NYLJ 1202731567320 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2015]), a nonpayment proceeding against a tenant with a Section 8 subsidy administered by HPD, the court granted a motion to dismiss where the landlord admitted that it failed to plead the Section 8 status in the petition and to serve copies of the notices on HPD in any manner whatsoever.{**58 Misc 3d at 204}
Further, there is no requirement, as argued by respondent, that proof of notice to the PHA be filed with the court in the same manner and at the same time as the filing of proof of service of the notice of petition and petition on the respondent. The service and filing provisions of the RPAPL establish the criteria for obtaining personal jurisdiction over the respondent in an eviction proceeding (see generally Dolan v Linnen, 195 Misc 2d 298 [Civ Ct, Richmond County 2003]), and simply do not apply to the federally mandated notice which an owner must "give" to a PHA under 24 CFR 982.310 (e) (2) (ii), a regulation which itself does not prescribe how the landlord is to "give" the requisite notice to the PHA or how the landlord is to prove that it did so.[FN6]
Accordingly, respondent's motion to dismiss is denied.
Discovery