(14) The Fourteenth Affirmative Defense claims that Petitioner failed to give Respondent the
notice required by ETPR Section 2503.5, i.e., - notice served not more than 120 days and not less
than 90 days prior to the end of the lease term.
(15) The Fifteenth Affirmative Defense contends that the Petitioner is precluded from
commencing this summary proceeding pursuant to ETPA Section 2505.7(e) because a
nonprimary proceeding cannot be maintained prior to the expiration of Respondent's renewal
lease. Respondent contends that a new tenancy was created after September 30, 2018, and
therefore Respondent is entitled to a new stabilized renewal lease.
(16) The Sixteenth Affirmative Defense contends that the Petition is fatally defective [*5]because Petitioner failed to comply with RPAPL Section 741. The
Petition does not incorporate the facts of the two Termination Notices and it is unclear which
Termination Notice is being relied upon. No details are set forth to support grounds for eviction.
Also, Petitioner states in the Petition that Petitioner is the proprietary lessee and sublandlord,
while elsewhere in the Petition, Petitioner represents that it is owner and landlord.
(17) The Seventeenth Affirmative Defense states that no proof is shown that the "DHCR"
was served with either the July 2018 or November 2018 Notices.
(18) The Eighteenth Affirmative Defense states that dismissal is necessary because
Respondent's name was misspelled.
(19) The Nineteenth Affirmative Defense states Petitioner is not entitled to legal fees, etc.,
because Petitioner is not the prevailing party.
The First Counterclaim seeks an order directing Petitioner to offer Respondent a renewal
lease in accord with ETPA Section 10(a) and ETPR Section 2503.5.