Recitation, as required by CPLR Rule 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of the Motion to Dismiss of Respondent Leslie Scevens, Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment of Kenya Myers and Cross-Motion for Leave to Amend Petition and for Use and Occupancy of Petitioner:Papers NumberedNotice of Motion, Attorney’s Affirmation & Exhibits A-G of Respondent Leslie Scevens 1Notice of Motion, Attorney’s Affirmation & Exhibits A-D of Respondent Kenya Myers 2Petitioner’s Notice of Cross-Motion, Attorney’s Affirmation & Exhibits A-G 3DECISION & ORDER
*1 Upon the foregoing papers and for the following reasons, Respondent Leslie Scevens’ Motion to Dismiss, Respondent Kenya Myers’ Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment and Petitioner’s Cross-Motion for Leave to Amend Petition and for Use and Occupancy are consolidated for disposition and decided as follows.BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORYThis is a licensee eviction proceeding based on a predicate Ten Day Notice to Quit which alleges that the former tenant, Tyshawn Rowe, moved out of the subject premises. Respondents are alleged to be Mr. Rowe’s licensees, whose license “expired and terminated by virtue of his moving out of the apartment,” and whose occupancy is without the landlord’s permission. The Petition, dated July 11, 2017 and originally returnable August 9, 2017, states that the premises are subject to Rent Stabilization and are duly registered as such with the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal. The Petition states that no rent or use and occupancy has been accepted from Respondents and seeks use and occupancy at the monthly rate of $946 along with a judgment of possession.By motion returnable January 5, 2018, Respondent Leslie Scevens, by Bronx Legal Services, seeks dismissal under CPLR RR 3211(a)(1) and 3211(a)(2) based on documentary evidence and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds of failure to plead the regulatory status of the premises. In addition to being subject to Rent Stabilization, which is plead in the Petition, Respondent asserts that there is a regulatory agreement between Petitioner and the City which subjects the premises to the
