on what the reason was and, "We definitely work with tenants, especially if they're transferring,
they want their new home to be in the same condition as the one they're leaving. We work with
the tenants; we want them to feel comfortable as much as possible. If the tenant reports it, we're
going to make it work."
Petitioner requested that the pleadings be amended to conform to the proof at trial and then
rested its case. After Petitioner rested Respondent moved orally to dismiss, arguing, inter
[*7]alia, that the Petition is defective as it asserts that
Respondent's apartment is Rent Stabilized when it is not and instead is in a HUD-subsidized,
project-based Section 8 development.
Respondent's Case
Respondent's case consisted solely of her own testimony, much of which was in the form of
yes and no answers to leading questions as well as some rambling and nonresponsive answers,
which were not objected to. She has resided for over thirty years in the subject apartment and
knows she lives in a HUD-subsidized building where rents are calculated based on income.
Respondent acknowledged receipt of Petitioner's letter of November 30, 2016. She testified
that she did not receive any notification that an apartment was ready between the date she
received the November 30 letter and December 15, 2016. She recalled being notified of an
available apartment in February 2017 and acknowledged receipt of Petitioner's letter of February
6, 2017. When asked if prior to receiving that she had been notified "of a specific date or a
specific apartment you needed to move in to" Respondent answered no. When asked if she was
notified prior to February 15 that the apartment was ready to move into Respondent answered no.