Here, service of the notice of petition and petition are not at issue: it is undisputed
that they were personally delivered to NYCHA. What respondent challenges is service of
the predicate notice, which was sent to NYCHA by "regular and certified mail". While
strict compliance with the Williams Consent Decree is required and dismissal
granted where the requisite service and other procedures are not followed, see, e.g.,
433 West Assocs v Murdock (276 AD2d 360, 360, 715 NYS2d 6, 7-8 [1st Dep't
2000]), in fact, petitioner has complied with the applicable provision that requires it to
"mail or deliver" a copy of the predicate notice to NYCHA. That the mailings of the
predicate notice were addressed to NYCHA's offices in Manhattan on the 9th floor at 90
Church Street, rather than the 11th floor at that same address, is a de minimus
deviation from the instructions on NYCHA's website for service of legal papers and does
not warrant dismissal of this proceeding.
Timeliness of Respondent's Answer
Respondent
further seeks an order permitting late filing of an answer to the petition. Under RPAPL
§ 743 the answer in a holdover proceeding is to be asserted or filed "at the time
when the petition is to be heard." Courts routinely interpret this statute to mean that the
time to file an answer is extended by adjournment of the proceeding. Picken v
Staley (2011 NY Misc LEXIS 5910, 2011 NY Slip Op 33237[U][Civ Ct NY Co
May 16, 2011]). Accordingly, respondent's answer is deemed timely filed. However, in
light of the court's dismissal of respondent's claims of a "stale" predicate notice and
defective service of that notice on NYCHA as set forth above, as well as the rule under
CPLR R 3211(e) that a personal jurisdiction defense is deemed waived if not raised in a