DECISION ORDER ON MOTION In this action plaintiff is seeking to recover damages for alleged rent overcharges since December 2011. In motion sequence number 001, defendant Fort 710 Associates, L.P., seeks an order pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff opposes the motion. BACKGROUND/CONTENTIONS Plaintiff alleges that he has resided in Apartment 3, in a building owned by defendant, located at 710 West 173rd Street, New York, New York since December 2011, pursuant to the terms of a lease which commenced on December 15, 2011 and expired on December 31, 2012. (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 1, 7). Thereafter, plaintiff and defendant entered into several renewal leases for various terms, with the last lease renewal covering a two-year term commencing on January 1, 2017 and expiring on December 31, 2018. (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12). Defendant contends that throughout the various lease terms, plaintiff was charged a preferential rent that never exceeded the legal rent that could be charged by defendant for plaintiff’s apartment. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 5, 6). Plaintiff contends, however, that from the outset, defendant has unlawfully overcharged the rent and has unlawfully increased rent upon lease renewals, for his apartment, claiming that defendant has engaged in an illegal scheme intended to hide the rent-stabilized status of the apartment from plaintiff and various government agencies. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1, 5). Plaintiff alleges that the language contained in the Deregulated Status Rider, attached to the December 15, 2011 lease, misrepresented that the apartment was not subject to the Rent Stabilization Law of the State of New York (“RSL”) and was intended to, and had the effect of, causing plaintiff to believe he had no rights under the RSL and that the apartment was market rate and not subject to rent regulation. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1,
46-47). Plaintiff also alleges that defendant, in furtherance of its fraudulent scheme, filed false certifications with the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (“HPD”), the New York City Department of Finance (“DOF”), and the New York State Division of Homes and Community Renewal (“HCR”), formerly DHCR, stating that defendant was managing plaintiff’s apartment as required by law to receive J-51 tax benefits. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1,
