Recitation, as required by CPLR Rule 2219(A), of the papers considered in the review of Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss: Papers NYSCEF DOC # Notice of Motion 9 Attorney’s Affirmation in Support 10 Respondent’s Affidavit in Support 11 Memorandum of Law in Support 12 Exhibits A-G in Support 13-19 Attorney’s Affirmation in Opposition 20 Attorney’s Affirmation in Reply 21 DECISION & ORDER PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND This is a nuisance holdover eviction proceeding brought against a Rent Stabilized tenant with a federal Section 8 housing subsidy administered by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). Both petitioner and respondent-tenant1 appear by counsel. Now before the court is respondent’s pre-answer motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action under CPLR R 3211(a)(7) based on two grounds. First, respondent claims that petitioner failed to serve the petition properly on NYCHA, both because service failed to comply with the Second Partial Consent Judgment in Williams v. NYCHA (81 CIV 1801 [SDNY Feb. 2, 1995, R.J.W.])(“Williams Consent Judgment”) as it was served by “regular and certified mail” instead of by personal service or overnight mail, and because the mailings by petitioner were sent to the wrong address for NYCHA (250 Broadway instead of 90 Church Street in Manhattan). Second, respondent claims that the petition fails to allege sufficient information concerning the premises’ regulatory status as it states, inter alia, that there is “a Regulatory Agreement recorded against the property” without specifying which agency that agreement is with. In opposition, petitioner argues that the motion should be denied both because the Williams Consent Judgment does not require service upon NYCHA for this proceeding, as it does not arise out of nonpayment of rent or termination of the tenant’s HAP (Housing Assistance Payments) contract, and because the petition sufficiently states the premises’ regulatory status. On reply, respondent argues that petitioner has confused the Williams Consent Judgment’s “certification” procedures with the requirement that even where “certification” procedures do not apply, landlords must comply with other service requirements under the Williams Consent Judgment. Respondent also points out that petitioner did not respond to the argument that it sent the papers to the wrong NYCHA address. DISCUSSION Where a tenant’s rent is subsidized by the federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, federal regulations require an owner who is terminating a tenancy to “give the PHA [public housing authority] a copy of any owner eviction notice to the tenant,” 24 CFR §982.310(e)(2)(ii), with “owner eviction notice” defined as “a notice to vacate, or a complaint or other initial pleading used under State or local law to commence an eviction action,” 24 CFR §982.310(e)(2)(i). Where the PHA is NYCHA, under the Williams Consent Judgment, supra, in a section entitled “Notice and Certification Procedures” applicable to all Section 8 tenants (other than those covered by “Old-Form Leases and Contracts” entered into before October 1, 1981, see Williams Consent Judgment at 5), landlords must comply with specific steps prior to and in the course of commencing eviction proceedings. One of the hallmarks of the Williams Consent Judgment is its elaborate “Certification Procedures” which are required where the basis for eviction is nonpayment of rent or grounds arising out of or related to the termination or suspension of a Section 8 subsidy. Williams Consent Judgment at
