Based on the foregoing, respondent's motion to dismiss is denied in its entirety.
Footnotes
Footnote 1:The court notes that most of the cases respondent cites to and relies upon are unpublished decisions and respondent does not attach copies. Indeed, only one cited decision is publicly available for review.
Footnote 2:See NHLP, Mission, https://www.nhlp.org/about/mission/.
Footnote 3:See NHLP, What We Do, https://www.nhlp.org/about/what-we-do/.
Footnote 4:See NHLP, Enforcing the CARES Act 30-Day Eviction Notice Requirement at 13 [Feb. 4, 2025], https://www.nhlp.org/wp-content/uploads/2025.02.04-Enforcing-the-CARES-Act-30-Notice.pdf.
Footnote 5:As other state courts have pointed out, federal principles of statutory interpretation require looking at the statute as a whole and viewing the particular provision within the context of the entire statute (see Ray v Ray, 22 F4th 69, 73 [2d Cir 2021] ["When answering questions of statutory interpretation, we begin with the language of the statute. If the statutory language is unambiguous, we construe the statute according to the plain meaning of its words. We discern plain meaning by looking to the statutory scheme as a whole and placing the particular provision within the context of that statute" (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)], citing United States ex rel. Wood v Allergan, Inc., 899 F3d 163, 171 [2d Cir 2018]; see also United States v Epskamp, 832 F3d 154, 162 [2d Cir 2016]).