The following papers NYSCEF Doc #’s 27 to 19 read on this motion: Papers NYSCEF DOC NO.’s Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed 27-42; 46-48 Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations) 47 Decision and Order After having heard Oral Argument on JANUARY 19, 2021 and upon review of the foregoing submissions herein the court finds as follows: Respondents, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK; CITY OF NEW YORK, move pursuant to CPLR 2221(e) to reargue on the grounds that the Court misapprehended matters of fact and law in determining the prior motion and based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion. (MS#2) Petitioner cross-moves to amend the pleading and/or enjoin DOB vacate order. (MS#3). ANALYSIS CPLR 2221 in pertinent part states: “(d) A motion for leave to reargue: 1. shall be identified specifically as such; 2. shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion, but shall not include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion; and 3. shall be made within thirty days after service of a copy of the order determining the prior motion and written notice of its entry. CPLR 2221(d)(2) articulates the standards previously outlined in the caselaw. A motion to reargue, it says: “shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion but shall not include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion. CPLR 2221. Under the caselaw existing prior to the 1999 amendments, a motion for reargument was often used when there was a change in the law after the prior order. CPLR 2221(e)(2) now clarifies that the motion to renew, not the motion to reargue, is the proper expedient when the motion is based on a change in the law that occurs while the case is still subjudice, such as a new statute taking effect or a definitive ruling on a relevant point of law being handed down by an appellate court that is entitled to stare decisis. See Siegel, New York Practice 449 (4th ed. 2005). The distinction, made clear in the caselaw and now embodied in the statute, is that the motion to renew involves new proof while the motion to reargue does not; it merely seeks to convince the court that it overlooked or misapprehended something the first time around and ought to change its mind. NY CPLR 2221. In the present case, Respondents contend that in deciding the previous motion, the Court overlooked or misapprehended relevant facts or misapplied controlling principles of law regarding the administrative agency’s determination. The Court agrees. It is well settled that what is reviewed under the arbitrary and capricious standard is the rationality of the agency’s determination, and a court may overturn an administrative action only if the record reveals no rational basis for it. Matter of Pell v. Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222, 230 (1974). It is also well settled, that “the ordinary function of a preliminary injunction is…to maintain the status quo until there can be a full hearing on the merits.” Spectrum Stamford, LLC v. 400 Atl. Tit., LLC, 162 A.D.3d 615, 616 (1st Dep’t 2018). In the present case it is undisputed that at the time of the argument on the motion for a preliminary injunction the Petitioners were no longer living in the subject premises as they had already been relocated to a hotel. This renders the motion for a preliminary injunction MOOT. Next, the court turns to the Respondents request to renew pursuant to 3211(e)(2). New facts have arose. Specifically, on September 15, 2020 the New York City Department of Buildings also issued a partial vacate order on the subject premises. Annexed to Respondents moving papers are the DOB Construction Inspector Allen Duke’s affidavit. DOB Construction Inspector Allan Duke (“Inspector Duke”) inspected the subject premises on September 9, 2020 following receipt of two complaints forwarded by 311 which stated “an illegally created attic apartment with an unpermitted bathroom and kitchen, only one means of egress (no adequate second means of egress), no sprinkler system, an unpermitted gas line installed near the lone means of egress, and a ceiling height in the attic that was approximately 3.6 feet at its lowest point.” See Duke Aff. at 5. After concluding his inspection Mr. Duke issued two Notices of Violation to the subject premises and recommended that a partial vacate order be issued due to the dangerous, unlawful conditions. See id. at
