Therefore, the court may consider respondent's motion on the adjourned dates and continue the proceedings for the purpose of addressing the unsafe and uninhabitable conditions and petitioner's obligations to remedy those conditions by making necessary repairs. The court finds that petitioner landlord had notice of unsafe and uninhabitable conditions existing in respondent's apartment at least since January 21, 2020, when the parties appeared in court. Despite complaints from the tenant and tenant's counsel, and a complaint and notice of violation issued by the Building Department, petitioner failed to remedy these conditions for almost two years. Instead, petitioner now takes the untenable position that the court has no authority to enforce petitioner's legal obligations to remedy the conditions and make repairs in respondent's apartment because of the stay on evictions. The court notes that these conditions existed more than one year before respondent filed the hardship declaration on March 1, 2021, triggering the stay on eviction. The stay on eviction proceedings does not absolve the petitioner landlord from fulfilling its legal obligations for abating these conditions.
In addition to the stay on eviction, a tenant affirms in the hardship declaration that he/she must comply with all other terms under the tenancy, lease agreement or similar contract during the pendency of the stay. (Act § 2, part C, § 1, subpart A, § 1 [4].) There is no authority for petitioner's contention that the landlord is not required to similarly comply with its legal{**74 Misc 3d at 195} obligations under the lease and applicable laws and regulations.