as required under the RSL; (4) petitioner has charged and collected washing machine charges
since 2005 as authorized by the RSL; (5) petitioner has willfully overcharged respondent in
excess of the legal rent; (6) retaliatory eviction; (7) breach of the warranty of habitability; (8)
counterclaim for an order directing petitioner to complete repairs; (9) counterclaim for breach of
the warranty of habitability; (10) counterclaim for treble damages for rent overcharge; and (11)
counterclaim for damages based on harassment.
Respondent now moves for summary judgment on his first, second, third, fourth and fifth
affirmative defenses; a determination that the premises are subject to rent stabilization; a
determination of the legal rent of the premises using the Division of Housing & Community
Renewal ("DHCR") default formula; a determination as to the amount of rent overcharge and
that said overcharge was willful; and an award of attorney's fees. Petitioner opposes the motion
in its entirety and asks the court to search the record and grant it summary judgment.
Respondent's arguments are premised on the court determining that his apartment is, as a
matter of law, subject to rent stabilization. Respondent argues that the apartment falls under the
purview of rent stabilization for three different reasons: (1) because it was improperly removed
from rent stabilization; (2) it is covered by rent stabilization by virtue of the building receiving a
J-51 tax abatement; and (3) by estoppel. The court need only address the first
argument.[FN1]
It is undisputed that the apartment was registered with DHCR as subject to rent stabilization
up through 1998. The last registered legal rent was $650 for a lease that expired on August 30,