ORDER
*1 Respondent moves this court, by her attorney, for an order dismissing the petition, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), (2), and/or (3) due to the service of an alleged defective rent demand. Petitioner opposes the motion. The underlying petition is a nonpayment wherein petitioner seeks alleged arrears due from May 2017 forward at the rate of $2,884.88 per month. The rent demand also lists the rent due at the rate of $2,884.88 per month. The parties entered into a lease agreement commencing December 2015 at the monthly preferential rent of $1,956. The legal rent is allegedly $2,884.88 per month. Executed with the lease was a “Preferential Rent Rider”. Paragraph 6 of said rider states: “Please note that if your preferential rent of $1,956.00 is not paid by the 15th of the month for that month, the legal rent of $2,884.88 for the said agreement will be considered due and payable that month. Should legal action to collect rent be deemed necessary, the legal monthly registered rent of $2,999.00 will be charged.”Respondent’s attorney now argues that the rent demand is defective because it fails to demand the preferential rent as per the lease, but instead seeks the legal rent. They rely on Hillside Place, LLC., v. Nguma, NYLJ 1202666526999, 7/30/14, which states that “a preferential rent is to remain in effect for the entire term of the lease. The Rent Stabilization Law does not permit the rent to be increased during the lease term.” They further argue that “rent discount schemes” are unenforceable because they amount to an unconscionable late charge and penalty that is disproportionate to reasonable damages. Petitioner opposes this argument claiming that the rent demand was reasonable and contained a good faith assertion of rent arrears owed. They rely on the notion that Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (“RPAPL”) only requires that tenant is on actual notice of the alleged amount due and the period of the claim which can be an “approximation” of the sum. Schwartz v. Weiss-Newell, 87 Misc.2d 558,561; 386 NYS2d 191.In Diversified Equities, LLC., v. Russell, 50 Misc.3d 140(A), citing Nguma, intra, the Appellate Term affirmed a lower court’s finding that a rent concession is to be considered a preferential rent which cannot fluctuate monthly. They further held that a lease with a rent concession rider results in imposing a late monthly charge which is excessive and grossly disproportionate to any damages that could be sustained as a result of tenant’s failure to pay rent
