Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219(a), of the papers considered in review of his Motion to Dismiss and Cross-Motion to amend the petition.Papers NumberedNotice of Motion and accompanying papers 1Notice of Cross-Motion and Opposition 2Reply Affirmation and Opposition 3Court file passimDECISION/ORDER The instant holdover proceeding was commenced against respondents by service of a Notice of Petition and Petition in or about February, 2018. The proceeding appeared for the first time on March 2, 2018 wherein both parties, represented by counsel, agreed to a submission schedule and the case was adjourned by stipulation to April 6, 2018 for all papers and submission. On April 6, 2018, the parties again agreed by stipulation to extend the submission schedule as petitioner had filed a cross-motion. Proceeding was adjourned to April 20, 2018 for all papers and final submission. On April 20, 2018 all papers were submitted. Respondents move to dismiss the proceeding claiming that respondent, Jillian Butler, is the recipient of a Section 8 Voucher administered by NYCHA1, and that Petitioner failed to comply with the Williams consent decree and failed to properly plead the Section 8 status of the tenancy. Petitioner, by cross-motion, asserts that he should be allowed to amend the petition to reflect the fact that respondent receives a NYCHA Section 8 Voucher.Very simply, Respondents argue that strict compliance with the William consent decree is required in that NYCHA must be served with a copy of the Petition either as proscribed by state law, or via overnight mail. See Alawlaqi v. Kelly, 175 Misc. 2d 570, 571 (Civ. Ct. 1997). The predicate 30 Day Notice of Termination and Notice of Petition and Petition herein, as indicated by the affidavits of services contained in the court’s file, were served only by certified mail. The Williams consent decree required that in a holdover, that does not arise out of the termination or suspension of the Section 8 subsidy or termination of the HAP contract, the NYCHA must be served the Petition and Notice of Petition as the state law required or by overnight mail. Specifically, it required the landlord to “upon commencement of the proceeding, serve a copy of the Notice of Petition and Petition on the Authority or send a copy of said documents to the Authority by overnight mail.” See Williams consent decree, paragraph (6)(b)(2) and Johnson v. Woods, 2017 NYLJ LEXIS 2534.There is no dispute herein that the Notice of Petition and Petition were served by certified mail only. As such, Respondents’ motion to dismiss is granted and the proceeding is dismissed without prejudice. In light of this, the Court does not reach respondents’ second argument and Petitioner’s cross-motion to amend is denied.This is the decision and order of the Court.Dated: Richmond, New YorkApril 23, 2018
