Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of this motion. Papers Numbered Notice of Motion and Supplemental Affirmation and Affidavit Annexed 1, 2, 3 Notice of Cross-Motion and Supplemental Affirmation and Affidavits Annexed 4, 5, 6, 7 Affirmation In Further Support 8 Envelope and Certified Mail Documents 9, 10, 11 Affirmation and Affidavit of Respondents 12, 13 DECISION/ORDER Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision and Order on this Motion are as follows: Maria Vargas, the petitioner in this proceeding (“Petitioner”), commenced this Housing Part proceeding (“HP proceeding”) against 112 Suffolk St. Apt. Corp., the respondent in this proceeding (“Respondent”), and the Department of Housing Preservation and Development of the City of New York (“HPD”), seeking an order from the Court pursuant to New York City Civil Court Act §110 directing Respondent to correct the conditions that led to a vacate order being placed on 112 Suffolk Street, Apt. 5C, New York, New York (“the subject premises”). Respondent interposed an answer (“the Answer”). The Court calendared this matter for trial to March 4, 2020. Petitioner now moves to dismiss the defenses in the Answer and for summary judgment. Respondent cross-moves to hold Petitioner in contempt. The Court consolidates these motions for resolution herein. The record on this motion practice shows that no party disputes that Petitioner is 75 years old; that Petitioner has resided in the subject premises since 1984; that Petitioner is protected by the Rent Stabilization Law with a two-year lease commencing June 1, 2018 with a monthly rent of $750.98; that Respondent purchased the building in which the subject premises is located (“the Building”) in 1986; that the subject premises is one of fifteen apartments in the Building; that there was a fire at the subject premises on July 24, 2019; that HPD placed a partial vacate order1 dated August 20, 2019 on the subject premises (“the Vacate Order”); that the Vacate Order is specific to the subject premises; that the Vacate Order cites fire damage to the ceiling, walls, and floor of the subject premises, a lack of electricity at the subject premises, and broken windows of the subject premises; that HPD ordered Respondent to correct the conditions pursuant to N.Y.C. Admin. Code §27-2125(a)(2); and that Respondent has not, as of the submission of the motion, corrected the conditions. The First Affirmative Defense of the Answer raises a personal jurisdiction defense. The pleading consists of a bare denial of receipt of service, which is insufficient to warrant a traverse hearing under normal circumstances. Benson Park Assoc. LLC v. Herman, 93 A.D.3d 609 (1st Dept. 2012), Slimani v. Citibank, N.A., 47 A.D.3d 489 (1st Dept. 2008), Omansky v. Gurland, 4 A.D.3d 104, 108 (1st Dept. 2004). Be that as it may, the record contains the envelope that Petitioner used to mail Respondent the pleadings, and the envelope, sent to Respondent by certified mail, return receipt requested, had been returned to Petitioner marked “RETURN TO SENDER/INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS/UNABLE TO FORWARD”. A tenant commencing an HP proceeding may serve the pleadings as provided in the Housing Maintenance Code (“the Code”). New York City Civil Court Act §110(m)(1). The Code provides for service by certified mail, return receipt requested. N.Y.C. Admin. Code §27-2115(j). MDL §325(1) requires owners of multiple dwellings, like Respondent, to register an address with HPD. Petitioner addressed the envelope to Respondent, care of “Nancy Shuh” at 551 Pacific Street, Brooklyn, New York 11217,2 the very name and address that Respondent previously registered with HPD pursuant to MDL §325(1). Petitioner’s reliance on the address Respondent itself previously registered with HPD was reasonable and Respondent’s use of that address on the prior registration estops Respondent from contesting the validity of service made on that address. Compare Toure v. Harrison, 6 A.D.3d 270, 271 (1st Dept. 2004). Furthermore, the HPD records, which the Court can take judicial notice of pursuant to MDL §328(3) and which are part of the record on this motion practice, show that Respondent has not kept its registration current. Respondent cannot fail to comply with the statutory requirement to provide a valid address for notice regarding housing standards and then benefit from that failure when, as a consequence, Respondent does not receive service of a pleading in an HP proceeding. Compare Dep’t of Hous. Pres. & Dev. of City of N.Y. v. Barrett, 20 Misc.3d 135(A)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2008), Dep’t of Hous. Pres. & Dev. City of N.Y. v. 532-536 W. 143rd St. Realty Corp., 8 Misc.3d 136(A)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2005), Dep’t of Hous. Pres. & Dev. of City of N.Y. v. 373 8th St. Realty, 35 Misc.3d 147(A)(App. Term 2nd Dept. 2012)(a failure to comply with the registration requirements of MDL §325 deprives a defaulting party in an HP proceeding from demonstrating the reasonable excuse needed to vacate a default judgment). See Also Matter of Mujahid v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Hous. Pres. & Dev., 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 30322(U),
