Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of this motion: Papers Papers Numbered Notice of Motion, Affirmation and Affidavit in Support, Memo of Law, and Exhibits 1 Affirmation in Opposition, and Exhibits 2 Memo of Law in Reply 3 DECISION/ORDER Petitioner commenced this commercial holdover proceeding seeking to recover possession of the premises located at Store #3, the Ground Floor Store Space and Storage Space, in the building known as 197 Seventh Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10011 (“subject premises”), based upon the allegation that respondent Sal’s Convenience Corp. (“respondent”) continues in possession of the subject premises without petitioner’s consent after its lease was terminated and expired on September 22, 2023. The petition seeks possession of the subject premises with issuance of a warrant to remove respondent therefrom, a money judgment against respondent for use and occupancy, and attorneys’ fees. The petition is dated September 25, 2023. Petitioner moves for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212, and for dismissal of respondent’s affirmative defenses. In support of the motion, petitioner submits the affirmation of Raul Escarza, petitioner’s agent, and various exhibits. Respondent submits opposition. The decision and order is as follows: Petitioner is the owner and landlord of the subject premises (NYSCEF Doc. No. 13). In April 2021, respondent entered into a lease agreement with petitioner’s predecessor in interest, as landlord, for possession of the subject premises (NYSCEF Doc. No. 14). Pursuant to paragraphs 8 and 42 of the lease, respondent was required to carry certain insurance policies throughout the entire term of the lease. Specifically, respondent was required, at its sole cost and expense, to maintain commercial general liability insurance in an amount no less than $1,000,000.00 for injury/death to persons and damage to property; Worker’s Compensation Insurance, as required by law; and plate glass insurance (see id., 42). Additionally, respondent was required to obtain insurance from a reputable and independent insurer, rated in Best’s Insurance Guide (or any successor thereto) as having a general policyholder rating of not less than “A”, and was required to name the owner of the premises as an additional insured (see id.). Petitioner states that respondent failed to maintain proper insurance coverage through the pendency of its tenancy. Petitioner states respondent provided it with Certificates of Liability Insurance which show that there was a gap in respondent’s coverage from March 25, 2022, to May 9, 2022 (see Escarza Aff, 7; NYSCEF Doc. No. 18). Petitioner’s attorney also states that he obtained copies of respondent’s insurance policies from the insurance producer, Trans World, Inc., and that the policies suggest a gap in insurance from December 21, 2022, through May 9, 2023 (see NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 18, 20). Moreover, none of the documents indicate that respondent carried Worker’s Compensation Insurance at any time (see id.). Furthermore, respondent only carried a $50,000.00 policy for commercial general liability insurance for damage to property and did not maintain plate glass insurance (see id.). Additionally, petitioner submits documentation suggesting the owner of the premises was not named as an additional insured from March 24, 2021, through March 24, 2022 (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 18). Petitioner also submits documentation showing that respondent’s insurer for the period of May 10, 2022, to May 10, 2023, carried a general policyholder rating of “B” and that its insurer for the period of May 10, 2023, to May 10, 2024, carries a general policyholder rating of “A-” (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 19). Due to the failure to carry proper insurance, as well as other alleged violations, petitioner served respondent with a 15-day notice to cure by certified mail on August 8, 2023 (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 1). Respondent failed to cure and on September 6, 2023, petitioner served respondent by certified mail with a 5-day notice of termination, effective September 22, 2023 (see id.). Respondent failed to vacate the premises after the termination of the lease and petitioner commenced the instant holdover proceeding. Petitioner served respondent with the notice of petition and petition by substitute service on October 9, 2023, with subsequent mailing on October 10, 2023 (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 16). In opposition to the motion, respondent argues that petitioner was responsible for securing adequate insurance for the property if respondent failed to do so. Respondent fails to submit an affidavit of anyone with personal knowledge of the facts and instead, relies upon its attorney affirmation. Respondent does not dispute there was a gap in insurance coverage from March 25, 2022, to May 9, 2023, but instead argues that it “is not a breach of the lease that warrants eviction” (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 24, 23). Respondent concedes that its insurance provider does not meet the Best’s Insurance Guide rating of “A” and that it also failed to carry a $1,000.000.00 policy for damage to the premises (see id.,
