Recitation as required by CPLR 2219 (a) of the papers considered in review of this motion by NYSCEF document numbers: 12-28. DECISION/ORDER PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND This is a holdover proceeding brought against Naomi Alvarez (“respondent”), a resident of a supportive housing facility operated by ACMH, INC., a supportive housing provider. The petition describes the relationship between itself and respondent as follows: “[R]espondent is a subtenant of petitioner, who took occupancy as part of a Community Residential Apartment Treatment Program operated by [p]etitioner, and licensed by the New York State Office of Mental Health.” (NYSCEF Doc No. 1, petition 9.) It is not disputed that petitioner commenced this proceeding by notice of petition and petition seeking respondent’s eviction on the basis that she has breached her occupancy agreement in that she has not complied with program rules. (NYSCEF Doc No. 1, petition; NYSCEF Doc No. 3, notice of petition assigned.) Attached to the notice of petition is a notice of termination. The notice of termination states that respondent’s tenancy will be deemed terminated as of October 23, 2020 “[b]ecause you have failed to meet your residency responsibility, as demonstrated in the Preliminary Notice of Intent to Terminate Residency, dated November 8, 2019 (annexed hereto and made a part hereof); Final Notice of Intent to Terminate Residency, dated December 19, 2019 (annexed hereto and made a part hereof)…” (NYSCEF Doc No. 1 at 4-5.) The record of this proceeding on NYSCEF, does not include these purported attachments with the petition and notice of termination that was served and filed. In April 2022, petitioner made a motion for use and occupancy. (NYSCEF Doc Nos. 12-16.) On February 17, 2022, the court appointed a guardian ad litem for respondent. (NYSCEF Doc No. 17.) On the hearing date of the motion for use and occupancy, petitioner defaulted, the proceeding was dismissed without prejudice and petitioner, subsequently moved to restore the proceeding to the calendar. (NYSCEF Doc Nos. 18-19, motion sequence 3.) On June 17, 2022. Manhattan Legal Services appeared and opposed petitioner’s motions for use and occupancy and to restore, and also cross-moved for dismissal of the proceeding. (NYSCEF Doc Nos. 21-22.) On, June 21, 2022 the court held a conference. The motion to restore was granted, and a briefing schedule was ordered. (NYSCEF Doc No. 23.) Respondent argues that the proceeding must be dismissed as the petitioner has failed to state a cause of action. The basis for this argument is two-fold: 1) Respondent argues that petitioner has failed to cite with particularity what the regulatory program requirements for termination of a tenancy are, and that the program requirements were followed (NYSCEF Doc No. 22, respondent’s attorney’s affirmation in support 41-50); and 2) Respondent argues that this is a breach of lease proceeding, and as is apparent from the record before the court, no notice to cure was provided. (Id.
