tenancy as of April 30, 2021. The petition was filed on August 9, 2022, proof of service
of the notice of petition and petition were filed on August 24, 2022 and the case was
calendared for an initial appearance on September 6, 2022.
Now before the court is respondent's pre-answer motion by counsel seeking
dismissal for failure to state a cause of action under CPLR R 3211(a)(7) based on two
grounds. First, respondent claims that the petition is based on a "stale" termination
notice, as more than fifteen months elapsed between the date respondent's tenancy was
terminated and the date this proceeding was commenced, and respondent has been
prejudiced by the delay. Second, respondent claims that petitioner failed to serve the
termination notice properly on NYCHA, both because service failed to comply with the
Second Partial Consent Judgment in Williams v NYCHA (81 CIV 1801 [SDNY
Feb. 2, 1995, R.J.W.]) ("Williams Consent Judgment") as it was served by
"regular and certified mail" instead of by personal service or overnight mail, and because
the mailings by petitioner were sent to the wrong address for NYCHA (the 9th floor at 90
Church Street in Manhattan, rather than the 11th floor at that address). In the alternative,
respondent seeks leave to file an answer.
In opposition, petitioner argues that (1) the predicate notice was not stale because
when this proceeding was commenced a prior holdover proceeding between the parties
based on the same notice, L&T # 306171/21, was still pending and the parties,
represented by the same counsel, discontinued that prior proceeding without prejudice by
stipulation so-ordered on September 22, 2022; (2) the Williams Consent
Judgment does not require a particular method of service upon NYCHA of the predicate