Petitioner alleges in its notice of termination that certain conduct described was "observed" without stating by whom and, regarding the allegations that do not refer to specific dates and times, without stating when. Respondent need not accept petitioner's assertions at face value (Smilow v Ulrich, 11 Misc 3d 179, 186 [Civ Ct, NY County 2005]), and in fact has denied those assertions in her third affirmative defense[FN7] (verified answer ¶¶ 24, 25), in which she "disputes each allegation in the Notice of Termination" and asserts that "the events described in the Notice of Termination did not occur."
Respondent has established ample need for discovery to obtain information which is necessary to prepare her case against petitioner's claims of nuisance and objectionable behavior. (See e.g. 86 W. Corp. v Singh, 2007 NY Misc LEXIS 8544, 238 NYLJ 108 [Civ Ct, NY County, Nov. 15, 2007, Jackman-Brown, J., L&T 77814/07] [granting tenants' discovery motion where landlord alleged that tenants harbored two pit bull terrier dogs which allegedly attacked and bit a resident's{**58 Misc 3d at 206} dog, attempted to attack the dog of another resident, lunged at building residents in a menacing manner, and roamed freely in the building's common areas].) Petitioner's argument that respondent has not established "ample need" because "the conduct alleged herein all occurred inside the apartment" (affirmation in opposition ¶ 21) is simply incorrect based on its own papers; petitioner's predicate notice describes numerous types of conduct that were allegedly observed in "hallways and stairwells" and "common areas" of the building. Respondent's request is for information that will clarify the facts and directly impact her defense, thereby promoting efficiency in the trial process which is de