Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219 (a) of the papers considered in review of this motion by NYSCEF Doc No: Papers NYSCEF Doc Nos. Petitioner’s motion seq. 1 and affidavits in support 1-7 Petitioner’s exhibits 1-10 8-17 Respondent’s opposition and cross-motion (seq. 2) and affidavits in support 19-21 Respondent’s exhibits A-G 22-28 Petitioner’s opposition and reply and supporting documents 30-34 Respondent’s reply and annexed exhibits 36-38 DECISION/ORDER PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND This is a licensee holdover brought against the daughter of the shareholder in a limited income housing cooperative, Danielle Gill (“respondent”). Petitioner has moved for summary judgment based on a Department of Housing, Preservation and Development (“HPD”) determination. that found that respondent is not entitled to succession of her mother’s shares and cooperative apartment. This determination, made upon review of documentary evidence, was upheld on appeal as having a rational basis. (Gill v. New York City Dep’t of Housing Preservation and Development, et al, Sup Ct, New York County, Sept. 28, 2019, Wan, J., index No. 101110/18.) Petitioner moves to strike respondents defenses and counterclaims and for summary judgment and use and occupancy. (NYSCEF Doc No. 5, motion sequence 1.) Petitioner argues that respondent is a licensee whose license expired with “the departure of the prior shareholder of record” and that, as this decision was upheld by the supreme court, respondent’s succession rights cannot be re-litigated in housing court. Petitioner believes that Cheryl Gill permanently vacated the premises in 2013 after purchasing a home in New Jersey and that the proceeding is not her primary residence. (NYSCEF Doc No. 6, petitioner’s attorney’s affirmation in support 11; NYSCEF Doc No. 13, petitioner’s exhibit 6, certificate of eviction.) Respondent cross-moves for summary judgment and dismissal of the petition pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) as petitioner has no cause of action against respondent, and pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (10) on the basis that Cheryl Gill, the holder of the shares to the apartment is a necessary party to the proceeding without whom full relief cannot be granted. Respondent states unequivocally that she is no longer claiming succession rights to the cooperative apartment. (NYSCEF Doc No. 20, respondent’s attorney’s affirmation 20.) Indeed, respondent’s answer asserts no claim to succession. Respondent further defends that Cheryl Gill has “not vacated or surrendered her interest in the subject apartment…nor has there been a termination of the shareholder of record’s tenancy.” (NYSCEF Doc No. 26, respondents exhibit E, verified answer
