Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219 (a) of the papers considered in review of this motion by NYSCEF Doc Nos. 1-26. DECISION/ORDER PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND This is a holdover proceeding commenced in August 2022 by petitioner, a supportive housing provider, against Ebstessam Eshaq (“respondent”). Respondent is a Section 8 recipient who is “eligible for NYC 15/15 assistance.” (NYSCEF Doc No. 1, petition 8.)1,2 On March 25, 2022, petitioner served a notice to cure, alleging respondent breached substantial obligations of her lease by keeping the subject premises “in an excessively cluttered state since soon after moving into the unit.” (NYSCEF Doc No. 1, petition at 7.) The notice to cure alleges the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (“HPD”) issued a Class B violation for a “nuisance consisting of excessive storage of material boxes, clothes, household items obstructing egress in the entire apartment….” (Id.) The notice to cure also alleges that “[b]ased on staff observations, every room except the kitchen is packed with belongings, leaving little or no room to walk through, and you also collect and hold recyclables for an excessive period of time, adding to the clutter and unsanitary conditions in the unit.” (NYSCEF Doc No. 1 at 8.) The notice further alleges that respondent had not cooperated with Adult Protective Services (“APS”) in their efforts to assist her.3 Respondent was given until April 20, 2022 to cure the alleged violations or be served with a notice of termination. (Id.) The notice to cure did not state what specific actions respondent must take to cure the alleged violations. Petitioner subsequently served a notice of termination on June 15, 2022, which alleges respondent continued to violate substantial obligations of her lease, based on the fact that a May 6, 2022 HPD inspection revealed the subject premises remained cluttered and that respondent continued to collect recyclables “for an excessive period of time, adding to the clutter and unsanitary conditions in the apartment.” (Id. at 4-5.) The notice of termination also alleged respondent unreasonably refused access to her apartment in violation of Section 2524.3 [e] of the Rent Stabilization Code, refused to permit petitioner’s staff into the subject premises on May 6, 2022, despite having received more than 24 hours’ notice of the request, and refused an offer from APS to conduct a deep cleaning of her apartment free of charge.4 (Id. at 6.) The notice directed respondent to vacate by June 30, 2022 or face a summary proceeding. The petition incorporates the predicate notices by reference in the petition. The petition was first scheduled to be heard on September 6, 2022, on which date the court made an APS referral. Respondent’s counsel filed a notice of appearance on January 11, 2023, and subsequently filed a motion in March 2023, seeking the appointment of a guardian ad litem (“GAL”) for respondent pursuant to CPLR 1202.5 (NYSCEF Doc No. 5, notice of appearance; NYSCEF Doc No. 11, signed order to show cause [motion sequence 1].) Respondent’s counsel filed an answer on March 26, 2023, prior to the return date of the order to show cause; the answer includes inter alia a defense that the notice to cure is “unclear, ambiguous, and equivocal.” (NYSCEF Doc No. 12, answer 19.) A GAL was appointed on June 15, 2023. (NYSCEF Doc 24, GAL order.) Now before the court is respondent’s motion to dismiss the proceeding due to alleged infirmities in the predicate notices. (NYSCEF Doc No. 15, notice of motion [sequence 2].) Petitioner filed opposition papers on June 7, 2023, and respondent filed reply on July 7, 2023. (NYSCEF Doc No. 22, petitioner’s attorney’s affirmation in opposition; NYSCEF Doc No. 23, Brandt affidavit; NYSCEF Doc No. 24, respondent’s attorney’s reply.) On July 13, 2023, the parties appeared for oral argument and the court reserved decision. ARGUMENTS Respondent contends that a predicate notice to cure a breach of a substantial obligation must inform a tenant of what actions the tenant must take in order to cure the alleged breach, citing to several Housing Court decisions in support of this position. (NYSCEF Doc No. 16, respondent’s attorney’s affirmation
16-17.) Respondent alleges the notice to cure left respondent to speculate as to whether she needed to remove just her belongings from the areas of ingress and egress, or if she needed to remove “every item deemed out of place…to avoid eviction.” (Id.
