Judge Diane E. Lutwak

Tenant moved for discovery in this holdover eviction proceeding commenced by landlord for possession of the premises arguing the tenancy was terminated as the apartment was not subject to the Rent Stabilization Law. Tenant's attorney argued the DHCR rent registration history for the premises established ample need under CPLR 408, noting courts regularly granted disclosure in holdover proceedings when tenants raised an illegal deregulation or rent overcharge defense. Landlord argued tenant's request for discovery was not tailored to clarify disputed facts, and the requisite ample need was not established. The court agreed that tenant established ample need to secure answered to various questions from landlord—including why there were differences in legal regulated and actual rent paid for nine years, but nothing was recorded in the preferential rent column in DHCR records—as they went to the heart of the key issue of the holdover action—if tenant's apartment was legally deregulated or was it still rent stabilized. It granted tenant's motion for leave to conduct discovery, but pared down the disclosure request to a more appropriate time frame, finding landlord would not be prejudiced by granting tenant's request for documents.