Landlord-Tenant—Landlord Sanctioned $5,000 For Commencing Numerous Frivolous Eviction Suits—Landlord Failed To Comply with DHCR Rent Reduction Order—Sanctions Deter Future Frivolous Conduct by the Parties and also by the Bar at Large—Goals of Sanctions Include "Preventing The Waste of Judicial Resources, and Deterring Vexatious Litigation and Dilatory or Malicious Litigation Tactics" —Sanctions Not To Be "Invoked Lightly" —The Court's "Admonitions and Orders Appeared To Have No Meaningful Impact on (Landlord's) Conduct"—Baseless Preferential Rent Argument—Deceptive Conduct Involving Default Judgment Applications Is Particularly "Problematic" Where There Is a 'Streamlined Procedure, and Where a Duty of Candor Is Critical'—Attorneys Did Not Act as a "Check On Frivolous Filings" —They "Too Often Seem To Rubber Stamp Proposed Filings, Failing To Exercise Even a Modicum of Due Diligence" —Unauthorized Practice of Law—Someone Was Allegedly Attorney-Verifying Petitions Using the Landlord's Attorneys NYSCEF Account After the Attorney Had Died—Some Notices Had the Deceased Attorney's Electronic Signature and Were Dated After His Death

This decision involved a summary non-payment proceeding seeking $248 in rent that the respondent "never owed." The court had to "determine whether to sanction (landlord)" for "frivolous conduct in violation of 22 NYCRR 130-1 (Rule 130)."

The landlord's subject 164-unit rent-stabilized building was "one of over forty buildings owned by its parent company ("A")." "A" is well acquainted with the requirements of the (NYC) Rent Stabilization Law (RSL), "both by virtue of its portfolio of over 1,000 units and given its involvement in an enforcement action commenced by the (NYS Attorney General) (AG) in 2019…" The AG had accused "A" of "flouting the RSL by, among other things, charging illegal broker fees to affiliated entities to extract 'key money,' imposing unlawful vacancy and late fees, and improperly charging tenants for copies of keys…"