its ground for commencing the proceeding is that the tenancy, which initially commenced
pursuant to a written agreement and subsequently converted into a month to month tenancy,
expired on May 31, 2020. Moreover, the Ninety Day Notice, attached to the petition and
incorporated therein, merely states that the landlord elected to terminate respondent's tenancy as
of May 30, 2020. Respondent argues that a review of the petition demonstrates that it is defective
because it fails to allege any grounds upon which the termination of tenancy is based as required
by the ETPA regulations. Respondent contends that the petition is defective because it fails to set
forth any specific facts to establish the grounds for the landlord to recover possession of
respondent's apartment and that a mere expiration of a lease agreement, as alleged in the
holdover petition, is not grounds for termination of a rent stabilized tenancy. As such, respondent
asserts petitioner has failed to state a cause of action.
Respondent also contends that he is entitled to summary judgment on his defense of
retaliation by petitioner and that he should be awarded legal fees pursuant to RPL 223-b(3)
& (4) since the petitioner commenced the instant action within one year of him filing his
complaints with the DHCR.
In support of the motion to dismiss, respondent affirms in his affidavit that he has resided in
the subject ETPA premises since December 31, 2013. He states that the subject premises is
located in an eight unit building that is registered with the DHCR and is subject to the ETPA.
Respondent asserts that as a result of warranty of habitability conditions in his apartment, on
March 15, 2020 he filed a Service Reduction Complaint with the DHCR. Respondent also asserts