This email, petitioner asserts, manifests a desire to commence a holdover proceeding
independent of, and unrelated to, respondent's complaints to HPD, giving petitioner a non-[*8]retaliatory motive for commencement of the proceeding.
Examination of the email, however, indicates that it was sent to petitioner's attorneys at 4:11 pm
on January 5, 2009, the very same date that HPD conducted its inspection of the Building, and
found the conditions that constituted the basis for the HP proceeding related to the Apartment.
Petitioner's own submission establishes unequivocally that the intention to evict respondent was
formed on the same date that complaints about conditions in the Building resulted in violations
being placed, violations that ultimately led to emergency repairs being completed by the HPD's
contractors.
The testimony and evidence demonstrates that petitioner, upon acquiring the
Building, negotiated a rent increase with Oliva, notwithstanding petitioner's assertions that Oliva
is not a tenant subject to any form of rent regulation and is therefore not entitled to receive a
renewal lease. Petitioner could have immediately elected to terminate Oliva's tenancy but instead
agreed to a new rent with him. Petitioner's election to reach a new rental agreement with
respondent is plainly inconsistent with a desire to terminate his tenancy. When heat, hot water,
and electricity to the Apartment simultaneously failed, petitioner, the respondent filed a
complaint with HPD that ultimately resulted in those services being restored; the work, however,
was not done by the petitioner but was completed, on an expedited basis, by contractors
employed by the HPD, notwithstanding the significant costs associated with such emergency