said month to month agreement was terminated on May 31, 2020. The petition further asserts that
notices were properly served on respondent via regular and certified mail and are attached to the
petition. The petition further states that the premises are subject to the ETPA. The notice [*2]attached to the petition, dated February 20, 2020, states, in pertinent
part, "PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, there (sic) undersigned Landlord of the premises known as and
by, 47 N. Bleeker Street, 3R, Mt. Vernon, NY 10550, occupied by you, elects to terminate your
tenancy as of May 31, 2020. This is a Ninety (90) Day Notice sent to you pursuant to the Real
Property Laws of the State of New York. If you fail to vacate on or before said date, you will be
considered a holdover tenant and the necessary eviction proceedings will be commenced against
you and all other occupants by the undersigned."
Respondent filed an answer in which he asserted petitioner's failure to state a cause of action
as a defense. Respondent also asserted a defense of retaliation by the landlord pursuant to RPL
§ 223-b(4) alleging that the commencement of the instant action was in retaliation for
respondent filing a Service Reduction Complaint and an Overcharge Complaint with the DHCR,
both filed on March 15, 2020. Respondent's answer also contains a counterclaim for legal fees
pursuant to RPL § 223-b(3).
In his motion to dismiss, respondent contends that petitioner has failed to state a cause of
action in its petition because it does not state any permissible grounds for maintaining a holdover
action against respondent as set forth in ETPA § 2504.2.[FN1]
Petitioner alleges that the subject premises is subject to the ETPA, however, it only asserts that