Recitation, as required by CPLR Rule 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of the Respondent’s Motion to Amend Answer and Dismiss Petition:Papers/NumberedRespondent’s Notice of Motion, Affirmation, Affidavit and Exhibits A-H 1Petitioner’s Affirmation in Opposition and Exhibits A-D 2Respondent’s Affirmation in Reply 3 Upon the foregoing papers and for the following reasons, respondent Glenda Dean’s motion to amend the answer, dismiss the petition and for other relief is decided as follows.In this nonpayment proceeding, the petitioner-landlord seeks to recover alleged rent and additional arrears of $3616.94, comprised of rent for March 2017 of $885.94, rent for April 2017 of $1326.00, rent for May 2017 of $1255.00 and a legal fee of $150. The petition states that the premises are subject to Rent Stabilization and that the rent demanded “is only the Respondents share of the rent pursuant to the Section 8 NYCHA supervised rental subsidy.” NYCHA (New York City Housing Authority) is named as a respondent, and the petition further states that, “NYCHA & Respondent were both given notice of the Petitioners intent to bring this action. The reason given to NYCHA was Respondents failure to pay rent. NYCHA objected to Certification and only Respondents share of the rent is sought from Respondent.” The petition states that rent was demanded by a five-day written notice. That notice, a copy of which is attached to the petition and dated May 31, 2017, seeks rent arrears of $3466.94 and states the same breakdown of rent arrears as is listed in the petition, without the legal fee of $150.Also attached to the petition is a form entitled “Certification of Basis for Eviction Proceeding Against Tenant Participating in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program” dated May 5, 2017. It is stamped “Received” on May 11, 2017 by the [NYCHA] “Leased Housing Dep’t Eviction Unit” and lists the names and addresses of the tenant, the landlord and the landlord’s attorneys. The upper half of the form states the landlord’s intention to commence an eviction proceeding and mirrors the information stated in the rent demand and petition: nonpayment of $3466.94, comprised of “the tenant’s share of rent at $1,255.00 per month” with the further “explanation and itemization” of “MAY 17 $1,255.00 APR 17 $1,326.00MAR 17 $885.94.” The lower half of the form contains NYCHA’s response to the landlord’s Certification dated May 17, 2017. NYCHA checked off the boxes indicating that it objects to the Certification because the proposed nonpayment eviction proceeding seeks to recover from the tenant more than her share of the rent. $1,255.00 is typed in on the form as the “correct tenant’s share of rent per month” and below that is a handwritten notation: “TS $814.34 for 4/17-5/17″.Respondent pro se answered the Petition on June 28, 2017, raising a general denial and a defense of conditions in the apartment which petitioner did not repair.Respondent, now represented by counsel, moves to amend her answer to add three new defenses and to dismiss the petition under CPLR R 3211 based on each: (1) defective petition in that it seeks rent in excess of her Section 8 tenant share in violation of the Williams Consent Decree; (2) defective rent demand; and (3) invalid multiple dwelling registration. The proposed amended answer also states a fourth defense and first counterclaim of “violation of the warranty of habitability”, providing greater particularity than is pled in respondent’s original answer, a second counterclaim seeking an order to correct the alleged violations and a third counterclaim for attorneys’ fees. Respondent also moves for a judicial inspection of the premises, for an order to correct violations and for reasonable attorneys’ fees.In her affidavit in support of the motion, respondent states that, prior to April 2017, her Section 8 tenant share of the rent was $816. Thereafter, by NYCHA notice dated March 28, 2017 (Exhibit F) she learned that, upon “Annual Review” and as of April 1, 2017, her share was being reduced to $814.34 and the NYCHA portion set at $745, for a “Total Contract Rent” of $1559.34. By NYCHA notice dated May 5, 2017 (Exhibit G) she learned that, upon “Lease Renewal” and as of June 1, 2017, her share was being increased to $1,255 and the NYCHA portion remained at $745, for a “Total Contract Rent” of $2000.00. Respondent’s attorney points out that petitioner’s rent demand and petition seek more than the tenant’s share as stated in NYCHA’s notices:$1326 for April 2017, when respondent’s tenant share was $814.34.$1255 for May 2017, when respondent’s tenant share was $814.34.Respondent’s attorney argues that petitioner brought this proceeding in violation of the Williams Consent Decree, that is, the Second Partial Consent Judgment issued by the Honorable Robert J. Ward in the case of Williams v. New York City Hous Auth (81 Civ 1801 [SDNY Feb 2, 1995]), which applies to eviction proceedings brought against NYCHA Section 8 voucher holders like respondent herein. Respondent’s attorney cites to and quotes from paragraph 10 of the Consent Decree, which prohibits a landlord from bringing a nonpayment eviction proceeding “that seeks a judgment against the tenant for the subsidy portion of the rent.” Respondent’s attorney also argues that the predicate rent demand is defective because, by seeking more than the tenant’s share of the rent in and for each month listed, it is not an “approximate good faith sum of rent assertedly due for each such period,” citing and quoting from Schwartz v. Weiss-Newell (87 Misc 2d 558, 561, 386 NYS2d 191, 194 [Civ Ct NY Co 1976]). Respondent asserts that before retaining legal counsel she did not understand that her landlord is not permitted to sue her for more than her share of the rent. Respondent’s Affidavit, sworn to September 5, 2017, at 2. As to the multiple dwelling registration, respondent provides (Exhibit H) a printout from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development’s (HPD’s) website dated September 5, 2017 which states, “This property is not currently validly registered with HPD.” On her breach of warranty of habitability defense and counterclaims, respondent asserts that she has resided in her apartment for eight years, Respondent’s Affidavit at 1, and describes eighteen conditions which “have needed to be repaired throughout my tenancy,” id. at 3.In opposition, petitioner argues that the court should deny respondent’s motion to amend her answer as the new defenses stated therein lack merit. As to the proposed defenses arising out of respondent’s status as a NYCHA Section 8 voucher holder, petitioner asserts that it did comply with the requirements of the Williams Consent Decree and its rent demand does constitute an “approximate good faith sum of rent assertedly due,” as required by the applicable case law.Petitioner attaches pages one and five of the Williams Consent Decree to its opposition papers and quotes from paragraph 12 thereof, which states that when NYCHA objects to the landlord’s Certification, as happened here, “and the landlord commences an eviction proceeding against the tenant, the landlord shall name and serve the Authority as a necessary party and shall commence a single proceeding against the tenant and the Authority.” Petitioner asserts that because it named and served NYCHA in this proceeding, it is in compliance with the Williams Consent Decree.As to the rent demand, petitioner’s property manager Elizabeth Jimenez states that she contacted her attorneys about preparing a rent demand when respondent failed to pay rent for March, April and May 2017, Jimenez Affidavit, sworn to February 1, 2018, at 4, and that the monthly amounts listed in the rent demand are comprised of the rent billed ($1559.34 in March 2017 and $2000 in April and May 2017) minus the payments received from NYCHA, as follows:$885.34 for March 2017, when petitioner billed $1559.34 and NYCHA paid $674.$1326 for April 2017, when petitioner billed $2000 and NYCHA paid $674.$1255 for May 2017, when petitioner billed $2000 and NYCHA paid $745.Jimenez Affidavit at
