DECISION FOLLOWING HEARING Petitioner Dale Robert Javino (“Petitioner” or “Landlord”) commenced this non-payment proceeding pursuant to Real Property Actions & Proceedings Law (“RPAPL”) §711(2), seeking possession of the residential premises located at 732 Pat Drive, West Islip, New York 11795 (the “Premises”) due to the failure of Respondent Philip J. Iacono (“Respondent” or “Tenant”) to pay rent. The Court conducted a non-jury hearing on the merits in which Petitioner appeared pro se, and Respondent appeared by counsel. Following the hearing, the Court reserved decision.1 PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioner amended the petition, which seeks unpaid rent for July through October 2022, to include additional months that had since accrued from November 2022 through February 2023, at a rate equal to $3,000 per month, for a total of $24,000. It was undisputed that Respondent has not paid rent for more than a year, and the only payments made during that period were through ERAP. This is the fourth summary proceeding involving the parties since April 2021. Two (2) of the earlier proceedings were dismissed on the merits following evidentiary hearings,2 and the third was dismissed after Petitioner received payment pursuant to the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (“ERAP”).3 The litigation has understandably been contentious, and, at moments during the hearing, the litigants were overcome with emotion. There were references to members of both the Town of Islip Code Enforcement Division and the Suffolk County Police Department having been called to the Premises. Although there was no indication that an order of protection has been issued, Petitioner implied that he felt compelled to stay away from the Premises for fear the Police would be called by Respondent or his wife. THE HEARING On February 20, 2020, the parties executed a written rental agreement for the Premises with a commencement date of March 1, 2020 (Petitioner’s Exh. 1, at 1). The agreed amount of rent was $3,000 per month, and the rental agreement expired on February 28, 2022 (Id.).4 It was undisputed that following the expiration of the lease, Respondent remained in possession on a month-to-month basis. The rental agreement further reveals that the Premises was in foreclosure at the time the lease was executed, and the parties contemplated Petitioner selling the Premises to Respondent in the future. In this regard, the lease provides that “[i]f the Landlord is successful dismissing [the] foreclosure and vacating the mortgage[,] the landlord will sell this tenant the home for 15 percent under the actual value and will hold partial notes upon negotiating the terms” (Id., at 6-7). Apparently, the parties have been unable to reach an agreement for the sale of the Premises. Petitioner testified that Respondent failed to pay rent for the months at issue, but, along with his family, remains in possession of the Premises. Acknowledging the need to make certain repairs, Petitioner further testified that during the latter part of 2022, he caused multiple contractors to visit the Premises, but Respondent refused to allow them access. In response to a question from the Court during rebuttal,5 Petitioner offered testimony regarding the predicate notice, and both the five-day late rent reminder and the fourteen-day rent demand were admitted into evidence (Petitioner’s Exhs. 2-3). The five-day late rent reminder, which is undated, states, in pertinent part, that rent is owed for the months of July, August, and September 2022 totaling $9,000, and Respondent has “5 days pursuant to NY law to pay the entire balance and you can remain or vacate the premise[s] on or before October 30, 2022″ (Petitioner’s Exh. 2). The notice was sent to Respondent via certified mail on September 30, 2022 (Id.). The Record contains no evidence that a five-day late rent reminder was provided for the month of October 2022, or any month thereafter. Petitioner’s fourteen-day rent demand, dated October 5, 2022, was purportedly served by Petitioner’s son at the Premises on October 5th, and, the following day, mailed to Respondent by both certified and regular first-class United States mail (Petitioner’s Exhs. 3-4). The accompanying affidavit of service states that Respondent was served “a true copy of the 14 day notice…at his place of Abode 732 Pat Drive, West Islip 11795 and certified mail [and] first class mail” (Petitioner’s Exh. 4).6 The rent demand states that rent arrears are owed in the amount of $12,000, but fails to provide any information regarding the period or months that the arrears accrued. The fourteen-day rent demand states, in pertinent part: [W]ithin fourteen (14) days after service on you of this Demand for rent, you are hereby required to pay via certified check to the undersigned Landlord or an Authorized Agent the back-rent including any late penalties or other fees accumulated of which you now hold possession amounting to the sum of $12,000.00 (US Dollars). If payment is not made you will be required to quit and deliver up the possession of the premises at the end of the fourteen (14) day period. (Petitioner’s Exh. 3). Respondent concedes that the rent has not been paid, and he does not challenge service. Instead, Respondent countered by asserting several affirmative defenses, including the implied warranty of habitability, defects in the predicate notice, and Petitioner’s lack of standing to enter into the original rental agreement. In support of the warranty of habitability claim, Respondent described the defective conditions of the Premises, both on the interior and the exterior, and Petitioner’s repeated unfulfilled “promises” to make the repairs. More specifically, Respondent testified that there is mold in various portions of the residence, including in and around the skylights, both the roof and skylights are leaking, and a multitude of defective conditions permeate the kitchen and bathrooms, the outside deck, and the swimming pool. Respondent introduced a series of photographs in support of these claims (Respondent’s Exhs. C — F). It is undisputed that the Premises was in need of repairs when Respondent and his family initially took possession in 2020. Unsatisfied with Petitioner’s efforts to make the requisite repairs, Respondent spent thousands of dollars remedying the conditions (Respondent’s Exh. G). Notwithstanding these repairs, which were performed prior to the commencement of this proceeding, Respondent testified that the conditions remain subpar and that he and his family have not vacated the Premises at any time throughout the tenancy. In addition, Respondent did not dispute Petitioner’s testimony that he had denied access to Petitioner’s contractors. In rebuttal, Petitioner testified that it was agreed that Respondent would perform work around the Premises for a decreased rent, but the only satisfactorily completed job was Respondent’s painting. Petitioner further disputes the applicability of the warranty of habitability defense because Respondent failed to provide written notice before certain repairs were performed and his refusal to allow Petitioner’s contractors to enter the Premises. DISCUSSION For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for the entitlement to unpaid rent. Based upon careful consideration of the evidence, the Court finds that portions of the rent sought were previously adjudicated in a prior summary proceeding, and, regarding the remaining months, the rent demand was defective in that it failed to provide adequate and/or accurate notice of the amount of rent past due at the time of service. The failure to provide a proper predicate notice is fatal to Petitioner’s claim. Although Respondent’s remaining defenses were not substantiated by the evidence, Petitioner bears the burden, and the failure to prove each element by a preponderance of the evidence necessitates dismissal of the proceeding. A. Principle of Estoppel to Deny Title Does Not Preclude Liability Respondent contends that the lease is unenforceable because Petitioner was not the owner of the Premises, and otherwise lacked apparent or implicit authority to enter into the rental agreement in February 2020. To the extent Respondent seeks dismissal based upon the principal of estoppel to deny title, the argument is devoid of merit. The estoppel to deny title defense does not apply where the Tenant enters into the agreement acknowledging, accepting, and benefitting from the Landlord’s title and permission to grant possession, and, thereafter, in an effort to avoid financial impact, seeks to avoid liability due to a title issue of no consequence to Tenant. In other words, as a general rule, the Tenant is “[e]stopped from denying that the landlord from whom the tenant received possession is the owner of the property” (Desiano v. Fitzgerald, 37 NYS3d 671, 675 [Peekskill City Ct. 2016] [citing Parkway Assoc. v. Berkoff, NYLJ, March 7, 1995, at 29, col.2 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 1995]]; 1 Robert F. Dolan, RASCH’S LANDLORD AND TENANT — SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS §5:8 [4th ed.] ["It is well settled that a tenant who has once acknowledged his landlord's title, and taken and held possession under him, and who has not surrendered his lease, nor been evicted from the premises, and who can prove no fraud against the landlord nor any transfer of the latter's title after the lease began, is precluded from denying that the landlord, under whom he has so held and claimed, is the owner of the property"]; see Ty Blds. II, Inc. v. 55 Day Spa, Inc., 167 AD3d 679 [2d Dep't 2018] [noting that "[t]he parties engaged in the subject business transactions and the defendants received the benefit of possession of the property [and, as a result,] defendants are estopped from using the plaintiff’s lack of proper incorporation to escape liability under the lease”]). In the instant matter, the parties negotiated the rental agreement acknowledging the Premises was in foreclosure and that Petitioner was seeking to acquire ownership (Petitioner’s Exh. 1, at 6-7). In addition, copies of both a New York Quit Claim Deed, dated June 9, 2021, transferring the Premises to Petitioner, and a Real Estate Power of Attorney, executed in Petitioner’s favor by the then owner in March 2019 (with an expiration date of March 11, 2022), were introduced into evidence (Respondent’s Exhs., A — B). Respondent cannot have it both ways. Since he entered into the lease with Petitioner, recognized Petitioner as the Landlord, took possession, and benefitted from that relationship, Respondent may not now successfully challenge Petitioner’s standing and authority to enter into the leasehold (see Attia v. Imoukhuede, 57 NYS3d 674 [App. Term, 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2017]). Accordingly, Respondent’s assertion that dismissal is required under the theory of estoppel to deny title is unsupported by the evidence, and, as a result, the motion is denied. B. The Doctrine of Res Judicata Bars Recovery of Rent For the Months of July, August, and September 2022 Due to multiple prior proceedings, the Court conferred with the parties regarding the months for which past due rent is sought. In the petition, Petitioner seeks rent arrears for the months of July, August, September, and October 2022, at a rate of $3,000 per month (Petition, 5). Based upon a cursory review of the petitions in the three (3) prior proceedings, it was initially thought that there was no overlap or duplicity of rent claims. However, a further review of the most recent summary proceeding demonstrates that this is not the case (Index # LT-1123-22/IS) (J. Ukeiley, dismissed September 29, 2022). The petition in the prior proceeding seeks the July 2022 rent in the amount of $3,000 (Petition, 5). During the hearing on September 29, 2022, Petitioner orally amended the petition to further include past due rent that accrued during the months of August and September 2022, in the amount of $3,000 per month (see Docket LT-1123-22/IS, Official Tr., dated September 29, 2022, at p. 25, lines 14-19). Following the conclusion of the hearing, the Court dismissed the proceeding due to Petitioner’s failure to demonstrate a prima facie case. It is well-established that “[a] final adjudication of a claim on the merits precludes re-litigation of that claim and all claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions by a party or those in privity with a party” (Milton v. Subraj, 128 NYS3d 411 [App. Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2020]; 867-871 Knickerbocker, LLC v. Poli, 117 NYS3d 799 [App. Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2019]). Moreover, the Court may take judicial notice of “[u]ndisputed court records and files to determine whether an action is barred by res judicata” (Milton, 128 NYS3d at 411 [citing Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 61 AD3d 13, [2d Dep't 2009]]). Here, the Court takes judicial notice of the official Court file regarding the prior proceeding (Index # LT-1123-22/IS), and, based upon the Court’s review of that matter, Petitioner is barred from recovering a judgment or warrant for unpaid rent for the months of July, August, and September 2022 as those claims were previously adjudicated in full (see Lannon v. Everest Natl, Ins. Co., 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 321 [2d Dep't Jan. 25, 2023] [holding that "[t]he doctrine of res judicata precludes a party from litigating a claim where a judgment on the merits exists from a prior action between the same parties involving the same subject matter’”] [quoting Josey v. Goord, 9 NY3d 386 [2007]]). Notwithstanding the removal of the months of July, August, and September 2022, which account for three (3) of the four (4) months in which it is alleged that rent has not been paid, Petitioner could potentially prevail on his claims for unpaid rent for the month of October 2022 as alleged at paragraph 5 of the instant petition, and, further, as orally amended at the hearing, the months of November 2022, December 2022, January 2023, and February 2023, provided all of the elements of a prima facie case are established by a preponderance of the evidence. C. The Predicate Notice is Defective Prior to commencing a non-payment proceeding, the Petitioner must cause to be served upon the Respondent a proper predicate notice that states the “[f]acts necessary to establish the existence of grounds for [an] eviction” (see generally Great Jones St. Realty Corp. v. Chimsanthia, 127 NYS3d 689 [App. Term, 1st Dep't 2020]; 888 E. 96th St., LLC v. Hargrove, 111 NYS3d 494 [App. Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2018]). The predicate notice is evaluated for sufficiency “[i]n view of the attendant circumstances, and courts look to whether the notice could ‘have materially misled or confused the tenant or hindered the preparation of [the] defense’” (1506 Wallco LLC v. Guzman, 135 NYS3d 795 [N.Y. Civ. Ct. Bronx Cnty. 2020] [quoting Oxford Towers Co., LLC v. Leites, 41 AD3d 144 [1st Dep't 2007]]). For the reasons stated below, both the fourteen-day rent demand and the five-day late rent reminder are defective, and, as a result, the petition must be dismissed. 1. Fourteen-Day Rent Demand A written fourteen-day “demand” for the payment of rent arrears must be made prior to the commencement of both residential and commercial non-payment proceedings (see Greenport Preserv., L.P. v. Heyward, 160 NYS3d 734 [App. Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2021]; Oakwood Terr. Hous. Corp. v. Monk, 36 NYS3d 48 [App. Term, 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2016]). If after the rent demand period the Tenant neither pays the arrears nor vacates the premises, then the Landlord may commence a non-payment proceeding (Greenport Preserv., L.P., 160 NYS3d at 734). The rent demand must state that the Tenant is required to pay the unpaid rent or, alternatively, return possession of the premises (RPAPL §711(2)). The demand must further specify the period for which rent is owed and a good faith approximate sum of the arrears (Rochdale Vill., Inc. v. Chadwick, 153 NYS3d 749 [App. Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2021] [sum sought in rent demand not a good faith estimate because "at a minimum, 63 percent constituted use and occupancy and not rent"]; Thomas Jefferson Owners Corp. v. Lokshin, 134 NYS3d 129 [App. Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2020] [dismissing proceeding where a substantial amount demanded included improper fees]; 125 Ct. St., LLC v. Sher, 94 NYS3d 539 [App. Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2018] [rent demand not a good faith approximate of amount owed]). The predicate notice is an element of the summary proceeding and a condition precedent for maintaining the action (see Mautner-Glick Corp. v. Glazer, 148 AD3d 515 [1st Dep't 2017]). The “burden remains with the landlord to prove [this] element of its case at [a hearing on the merits]” (W54-7 LLC v. Schick, 829 NYS2d 399 [App. Term, 1st Dep't 2006]). This means that the Petitioner cannot prevail, inter alia, absent adequate proof the predicate notice was sufficient and properly served (see, e.g., Mautner-Glick Corp., 148 AD3d at 515 [affirming dismissal of holdover proceeding where "proper service of the [predicate] notice was not established at the hearing”]; Gristmill Realty, LLC v. Roa, 133 NYS3d 383 [App. Term, 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2020] [denying default judgment application where the petition failed to allege a proper rent demand was served]). Since the predicate notice is an element of the case, a defective notice will result in a dismissal even where the Tenant fails to raise the defense during the hearing (Metro Plaza Apts., Inc. v. Buchanan, 204 AD3d 45 [3d Dep't 2022]; Chinatown Apts., Inc. v. Lam, 51 NY2d 786 [1980]). In the instant matter, Respondent’s counsel objected and orally moved to dismiss the proceeding due to defects in the fourteen-day rent demand.7 Upon careful consideration of the rent demand, the Court finds that Petitioner failed to serve a proper predicate notice prior to commencing the non-payment proceeding. a. The Demand Fails to Specify The Period For Which Rent is Past Due The rent demand, dated October 5, 2022, states, in pertinent part, that Respondent must pay the sum of $12,000 in arrears within fourteen (14) days (Petitioner’s Exh. 3). The failure to specify the month or months, or other period of time, in which the rent accrued is fatal to Petitioner’s claims. There are a bevy of cases that unequivocally hold that the rent demand must “[f]airly apprise the tenant of the periods for which rent is allegedly due and in what amounts” (see e.g., Almark Holdings Co., LLC v. Pizza 147 NY LLC, 178 NYS3d 361 [App. Term, 1st Dep't 2022]; 54-56 Mgt. Corp. v. MTA Fine Arts Co., Inc., 175 NYS3d 165 [App. Term, 1st Dep't 2022]; Moniaci v. Kelly, 152 NYS3d 216 [App. Term, 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2021]; Pantigo Professional Ctr., LLC v. Stankevich, 110 NYS3d 194 [App. Term, 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2018]; 10 Midwood LLC v. Hyacinth, 2003 NY Slip Op 50789[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2003] [holding that the an approximate good faith amount of rent owed is sufficient "[s]o long as the demand sufficed to fairly apprise the tenant of the periods and amounts for which rent is alleged due”]). Due to the rent demand failing to specify the periods for which the unpaid rent accrued, the demand is defective, and, as a result, the petition must be dismissed (Pantigo Professional Ctr., LLC, 110 NYS3d at 194). b. The Amount of the Rent Demand is Inaccurate The fourteen-day rent demand is further defective because it exceedingly overstates the amount of rent past due, and, therefore, Petitioner failed to provide Respondent with reasonable notice of the amount of arrears forming the basis of this non-payment proceeding. In sum, the rent demand is materially false and misleading in that it claims $12,000 in rent arrears when, at the time of its service in October 2022, the maximum amount of rent owed by Respondent was $3,000.8 The rent demand was served the week following the dismissal of the previous proceeding, and clearly did not account for the fact that the three (3) months (July 2022 — September 2022) were included in the former case by oral amendment. As a result, in addition to failing to identify the month or months that rent is claimed due, the amount of rent demanded is overstated by no less than seventy-five percent (75 percent). Due to the excessiveness of the inaccuracies and the vagueness of the description, in addition to the impact on Respondent’s ability to respond and defend himself and the potential to avoid litigation altogether, the rent demand was defective (see Rochdale Vill., Inc., 153 NYS3d at 749 [holding that a 63 percent error in the amount of rent demanded resulted in a defective rent demand]; EOM 106-15 217th Corp. v. Severine, 112 NYS3d 861 [App. Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2019]; 125 Ct. St., LLC, 94 NYS3d at 539). Since Petitioner failed to provide reasonable notice of the amount owed as required, the rent demand was inadequate. Absent service of a proper predicate notice, which may not be amended, Petitioner is unable to prevail in the summary proceeding, and the petition must be dismissed (146 Flushing Ave. v. 66s Fusion, 147 NYS3d 868 [App. Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2021]). 2. Five-Day Late Rent Reminder For residential properties, Real Property Law (“RPL”) §235-e(d) requires the service of a second written notice prior to the commencement of a non-payment proceeding. The statute provides that a written five-day late rent reminder must be served when the rent has not been received within five (5) days of its due date (RPL §235-e(d)). Unlike the fourteen-day rent demand, this notice need not be formally served, but rather is to be provided by certified mail (Id.). The failure to serve a proper five-day late rent reminder may constitute an affirmative defense in a non-payment proceeding (Id.). In the instant proceeding, the certified mail, return receipt attached to Petitioner’s undated five-day late rent reminder indicates that the notice was mailed to Respondent on September 30, 2022, the day after Petitioner’s prior proceeding (LT-1123-22/IS) was dismissed (Petitioner’s Exh. 2). The late rent reminder states that rent in the amount of $9,000 for the months of July, August, and September 2022 is past due (Id.). As discussed above, the rent for these months was previously adjudicated, and, since the late rent reminder was served prior to October 1, 2022, the document did not, nor could it, include the October 2022 rent which, at that time, was not at least five-days late. The Record is devoid of any indication that Petitioner subsequently served a proper five-day late rent reminder for the month of October 2022 prior to the commencement of the instant non-payment proceeding. Although not asserted by Respondent, the Court notes that the failure to serve a five-day late rent reminder is in direct contravention of the law (see RPL §235-e(d); PPT Mgmt., LLC v. Accu-Serve Process Service, Ltd., Index No. 000352-22 [Nassau Cnty. Dist. Ct. June 13, 2022] [in an unpublished decision, dismissing non-payment proceeding where Landlord mistakenly served a five-day rent demand, as opposed to a fourteen-day rent demand and a five-day late rent reminder]). Accordingly, the five-date late reminder is defective. However, since the defense was not asserted, the issue arises whether the defect may result in the Court dismissing the proceeding sua sponte. This appears to be an issue of first impression. However, in light of the foregoing, the Court need not resolve the issue and shall refrain from issuing an advisory opinion. D. Respondent Failed to Substantiate A Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability Notwithstanding the findings above, due to this being the fourth summary proceeding between the parties, and the possibility of a fifth in the near future, and further having heard exhaustive testimony and reviewing documentation regarding the conditions of the Premises over a three-year period, a determination on the warranty of habitability defense is warranted. The Court notes that the herein conclusions are not dispositive or binding on any future warranty of habitability claims for a period after February 9, 2023. The implied warranty of habitability requires the Landlord to maintain residential Premises in a habitable condition and in accord with the uses reasonably intended by the parties (RPL §235-b; Park W. Mgt. Corp. v. Mitchell, 47 NY2d [1979]). To prevail on a defense for a breach of the warranty of habitability, the Tenant “must offer proof as to the dates, severity and duration of the conditions complained of,…and show that notice of the conditions was given to the landlord” (see EB Mgt. Props. v. Maruf, 142 NYS3d 273 [App. Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists 2021]; Sinclair v. Ramnarace, 959 NYS2d 92 [App. Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2012]; Anoula Realty Corp. v. Weiss, 847 NYS2d 895 [App. Term, 2d & 11th Jud. Dists. 2007]). In addition, the Tenant must demonstrate that the Landlord was given access and an opportunity to remedy the defective conditions, yet failed to do so (see EB Mgt. Props., 142 NYS3d at 273; 150-15 79th Ave. Owners Corp. v. James, 927 NYS2d 818 [App. Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2011]). Finally, the amount of an abatement awarded as an offset against unpaid rent must contemplate “the severity of the violation and duration of the conditions giving rise to the breach as well as the effectiveness of steps taken by the landlord to abate those conditions” (Park W. Mgt. Corp., 47 NY2d at 329; 2590 35th St., LLC v. Veleva, 160 NYS3d 736 [App. Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2022]). Based upon the credible evidence, the Respondent failed to prove a breach of the warranty of habitability and, even if the defense had been established, failed to provide information sufficient to accurately determine damages. The evidence clearly demonstrated that the alleged defective conditions existed and were known by Respondent when he took possession of the Premises in March 2020, and that these conditions persist through the present date. Although taking possession of premises with knowledge of existing defects is not a bar to the warranty of habitability defense, Respondent’s claim is belied by the undisputed fact that he and his family have continuously occupied the Premises for more than three (3) years through the expiration of the parties’ rental agreement, and, thereafter, voluntarily continued to occupy the Premises uninterrupted for an additional year, all under the same defective conditions (see Ansonia Assocs. v. Ansonia Residents’ Assoc., 78 AD2d 211 [1st Dep't 2018] [holding that "[t]he tenants’ claim of landlord’s liability for claims pre-existing the landlord’s takeover…is of doubtful validity, except to the extent that those conditions continued at the time the rent was withheld”]). In evaluating the warranty of habitability defense, the Court considers the relevant time period to be the range of dates that unpaid rent is sought, which, in this case, is October 2022 through present. Respondent’s testimony was nonspecific with regard to any new defective conditions, the onset and causes of existing defects, the extent to which the repairs Respondent had performed remedied or worsened these conditions, and any timely communications or notifications given Petitioner regarding specific repairs, and his failure to perform such repairs. Respondent’s claim is further thwarted by the repair work he caused to be performed prior to the relevant period because, even after doing such, Respondent maintains that the condition of the Premises is subpar (Respondent’s Exh. G). Respondent did not elicit the testimony of a contractor or other licensed professional to corroborate the claims or perform a damage assessment,9 and the series of paid receipts for repairs prior to the relevant time period do not permit the Court to accurately assess an abatement of rent. Moreover, Petitioner testified, and Respondent did not refute, that in or about December 2022, at Petitioner’s behest, several contractors visited the Premises, but Respondent denied them entry and access (see Palushaj Realty, LLC v. Ryjov, 98 NYS3d 501 [App. Term, 1st Dep't 2018]; LGS Realty Partners LLC v. Kyle, 26 NYS3d 725 [App. Term, 1st Dep't 2015]). Accordingly, for each condition alleged, Respondent either failed to meet his burden to demonstrate a breach of the warranty of habitability or provide sufficient information to compute damages. As a result, the defense was not established. The Court considered the remaining arguments and found them to be without merit. In sum, Petitioner would have prevailed in this non-payment proceeding but for the defective predicate notice. Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED, that the petition is dismissed, and it is hereby further ORDERED, that Respondent’s motion for a trial order of dismissal is denied as moot. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. Dated: February 21, 2023
