Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219 (a), of the papers considered in review of this motion and cross-motion, listed by NYSCEF document number: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. Upon the foregoing cited papers, the decision and order on this motion and cross-motion is as follows: FACTS AND ARGUMENTS Petitioner in this summary holdover proceeding, Pri Villa Avenue, LP (“Petitioner”), seeks to recover possession of the subject residential premises from respondent August Cocchia (“Respondent”) on the basis that Respondent “[has] engaged in a course of objectionable conduct that interferes with the rights and comforts of others….” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 24 at 9, notice of termination.) The essence of Petitioner’s allegation is that Respondent has maintained the premises in a cluttered and unsanitary manner and has refused its attempts to declutter and exterminate. It is not disputed that Petitioner is a recipient of funding through the Shelter Plus Care Program, and that Respondent, a rent stabilized tenant, is a participant in the program. It is also not disputed that the premises is further governed by a regulatory agreement between Petitioner and New York City and consequently subject to Low Income Housing Tax Credit (“LIHTC”) regulations. If Petitioner prevails, Respondent will lose both his home and his assistance through the program. Respondent, now represented by counsel, has moved to dismiss the petition pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) arguing Petitioner has failed to state a legal and factual basis for this proceeding as required by RPAPL 741 (4) in that Petitioner has “failed to properly plead the regulatory status of the subject premise and its compliance with the federal rules and regulations that govern the Shelter Plus Care Program….” (NYSCEF Doc No. 5, Fonseca affirmation 42.) Specifically, Respondent argues that Petitioner was required to and failed to allege in the petition that (1) the premises is subject to the federal regulations of the Shelter Plus Care program, (2) the premises is governed by a HOME Written Agreement and that the Petitioner receives subsidies pursuant to the federal HOME Investments Partnerships Program, and (3) the premises is subject to the LIHTC regulations. (NYSCEF Doc No. 5, Fonseca affirmation 50.) Respondent also moves to dismiss the petition on the grounds that Petitioner lacks standing to commence this proceeding because, contrary to the allegations in the petition, Petitioner is not the “owner of the premises.” (NYSCEF Doc No. 5, Fonseca affirmation
17-18; see also NYSCEF Doc No. 24 at 6, verified petition 1.) Respondent contends instead that the proper party to the proceeding is Pri Villa Avenue Housing Development Fund Corporation (“the HDFC”), the entity that holds record title as indicated by the most recently recorded deed. (NYSCEF Doc No. 5, Fonseca affirmation 18.) In the alternative, Respondent argues that Respondent has provided the court with a “hardship declaration” and the proceeding must accordingly be stayed pursuant to the COVID-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Act (“CEEFPA”) as the grounds for this proceeding do not qualify Petitioner for an exception under CEEFPA to the stay provisions of same.1 (NYSCEF Doc No. 5, Fonseca affirmation
