The following efiled (NYSCEF) papers read herein: Papers Numbered Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause/Petition/Cross Motion and Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed 15-16 Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations) 67, 68 Reply Affidavits (Affirmations) 82, 83 DECISION AND ORDER Upon the foregoing papers, defendant Dumbo Lofts Rental LLC moves (motion sequence #1) for an order, pursuant to CPLR 3212, granting summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint of plaintiffs William Armstrong, Jennifer Mancini, Propel-ant Inc., Norman Yun, Nam Hee Lee, Keirnan Monaghan and Nusrat Durrani. The instant action seeks a judgment 1) declaring that plaintiffs’ tenancies in defendant’s residential building at 81 Washington Street in Brooklyn are subject to the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL) and Code (RSC), 2) determining the amounts of their legal regulated rent, 3) directing defendant and defendant’s successors-in-interest to comply with the provisions of the RSL and the RSC with respect to plaintiffs’ tenancies and 3) awarding plaintiffs damages for rent overcharges, including treble damages and/or interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. The subject building was converted from a commercial building to a residential apartment building in or around 2000. In conjunction with the renovation of the building, the prior owner, Dumbo Lofts LLC, received tax benefits for the building pursuant to Real Property Tax Law §489 and New York City Administrative Code §11-243 (J-51 tax benefits) from 2000 until their expiration in 2014. Defendant apparently became the owner of the subject property on December 4, 2014.1 Plaintiffs became tenants of the building during the period that the owner was receiving J-51 tax benefits and commenced their respective occupancies pursuant to rent stabilized leases. In their amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that the owner engaged in a fraudulent scheme whereby the owner 1) listed the initial legal regulated rents for each apartment on initial registration forms filed with New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) as an amount higher than the amount actually charged, which was not allowed by law, 2) failed to advise plaintiffs of the correct legal regulated rental amounts for their respective apartments, 3) stated that plaintiffs were charged a preferential rent when in fact they were not, 4) failed to file proper annual registrations with the DHCR, 5) stated that plaintiffs’ rent stabilized status expired upon the expiration of the J-51 benefit period, when in fact the Plaintiffs were entitled to continuing rent stabilized status due to the failure to include requisite notices with their leases, 6) tendered deregulated leases to plaintiffs while their tenancies were still rent stabilized and, 7) increased the rents at rates above what was allowable under rent stabilization requirements. Plaintiffs maintain that the provision of leases and lease renewals containing notices that the amounts they agreed to pay were “preferential rents” but which listed a higher legal regulated rent, as well as the registration of their apartments with these improper rent amounts, was part of a fraudulent scheme. Plaintiffs argue that the legal regulated rent for their respective apartments must be calculated using the “default formula” applicable to cases where the owner engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deregulate and/or that the rents must be frozen from the date that the apartments were initially registered due to the owner’s filing of “improper” initial and annual registrations. The owner rejects plaintiffs’ claims that it engaged in fraud or that the registrations were improper and argues that its inadvertent charging of rents over the legal regulated rent, on the mistaken belief that the units were deregulated, was rectified with prompt refunds with interest and the filing of registrations for the years following the expiration of the J-51 tax benefits. The owner maintains that it continues to treat plaintiffs as rent stabilized tenants and is charging each of the plaintiffs a legal rent. The owner seeks summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint in its entirety. “A defendant moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of coming forward with admissible evidence, such as affidavits by persons having knowledge of the facts, reciting the material facts and showing that the cause of action has no merit” (GTF Mktg., Inc. v. Colonial Aluminum Sales, Inc., 66 NY2d 965, 967 [1985]; see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Failure to make such prima facie showing requires a denial of the motion regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). The proof submitted to the court should be scrutinized carefully in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion (see Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404 [1957]). Once the moving party has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, however, the burden shifts to the opponent to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which requires a trial (Gilbert Frank Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966, 967 [1988]; Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). “[M]ere conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions are insufficient” for this purpose (Zuckerman, 49 NY2d at 562). To determine whether an owner overcharged rent, a court or the DHCR must first determine the legal regulated rent, defined as rent charged on the base date plus any subsequent lawful increases (RSC §§2520.6 [e], 2526.1 [3] [i]). Before the enactment of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA) (L 2019, ch 36), which made substantial changes to the RSL, overcharge claims were subject to a four-year statute of limitations that precluded the recovery of overcharges incurred more than four years preceding the imposition of a claim (former RSL §26-516[a][2]; former CPLR 213-a; see Conason v. Megan Holding LLC, 25 NY3d 1 [2015]). The statutes further directed that “no determination of an overcharge and no award or calculation of an award of the amount of an overcharge may be based upon an overcharge having occurred more than four years before” initiation of the claim (former RSL §26-516 [a] [2]; see former CPLR 213-a). The base date was formerly defined as the most recent of (1) the date four years before the overcharge complaint, or (2) the date when the apartment became rent regulated (RSC §2520.6 [f] [1], [2]; Gordon v. 305 Riverside Corp., 93 AD3d 590, 592 [1st Dept 2012]). Although the “look-back” for an apartment’s rental history was ordinarily limited to the four-year period preceding the date that the plaintiff/petitioner files the complaint (see Thornton v. Baron, 5 NY3d 175, 180 [2005]), the rental history prior to the four-year period “may be examined for the limited purpose of determining whether a fraudulent scheme to destabilize the apartment tainted the reliability of the rent on the base date” (Matter of Grimm v. State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal Off. of Rent Admin., 15 NY3d 358, 367 [2010]). Where the base date rent is the product of a fraudulent scheme to deregulate the apartment, a court or the DHCR may employ the “default method” in determining the legal regulated rent (RSC §§2522.6 [b] [2] (iii), [3]).2 On June 14, 2019, the HSTPA went into effect. Part F of the HSTPA pertains to the examination of rent history, determination of legal regulated rent, calculation of overcharge awards and the assessment of treble damages. Among the changes implemented by Part F, §4 of the HSTPA was the amendment of RSL §26-516 to define the legal regulated rent for purposes of determining an overcharge as the rent indicated in the most recent reliable annual registration statement filed and served upon the tenant six or more years prior to the most recent registration statement, (or, if more recently filed, the initial registration statement) plus in each case any subsequent lawful increases and adjustments. Part F, §7 of the HSTPA provides that “[t]his act shall take effect immediately [June 14, 2019] and shall apply to any claims pending or filed on and after such date.” In April 2020, the Court of Appeals decided Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal (35 NY3d 332 [2020]) (Regina), which held that “the overcharge calculation amendments [in the HSTPA] cannot be applied retroactively to overcharges that occurred prior to their enactment [on June 14, 2019]” (id. at 363). Only where the tenant produces evidence of a fraudulent scheme to deregulate an apartment may the rental history preceding the four-year base date be reviewed, and only for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether fraud has occurred, not to form the calculation of the overcharge award (Regina, 35 NY3d at 355; citing Matter of Grimm v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 15 NY3d 358 [2010]). In cases where fraud is demonstrated and a reliable base date rent cannot be established, the Regina court revived the rule created by prior precedent that the base date rent upon which an overcharge is calculated should be determined by applying the default formula of the RSC. According to Regina, prior to the HSTPA’s enactment, an owner would not be expected to retain rental records for more than four years. Therefore, where, as here, a plaintiff is claiming overcharges occurring both before (which would be subject to the four-year limitations period) and after (which would be subject to the new six-year limitations period) the enactment of HSTPA, the base date must be established as the date four years prior to the enactment of the HSTPA, or June 14,2015. In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendant submits the affidavit of its chief Financial Officer, Richard Shill, along with exhibits which include plaintiffs’ leases and DHCR registration history. Defendant also submits orders stemming from a DHCR proceeding involving another tenant at the subject building (Matter of Bowlus v. New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, et ano., Supreme Court, Kings County Index No. 515369/18) (“Matter of Bowlus”), wherein identical issues concerning fraud and improper registrations were raised by the tenant and rejected by the DHCR. The DHCR’s determination in Matter of Bowlus was upheld following an Article 78 proceeding by order of Justice Wavny Toussaint dated June 26, 2019. The court notes that the DHCR’s determination and the order of Justice Toussaint, while instructive, are respectfully not binding on this court and do not have any preclusive effect on the claims raised herein by other tenants of the subject building. In his affidavit, Shill attests to the rent and litigation histories involving each of the plaintiffs, as well as the corrective measures the owner took after plaintiffs filed their DHCR complaints as follows: Durrani Durrani took occupancy of Apartment 2J pursuant to a rent stabilized vacancy lease commencing March 18, 2005. On the June 14, 2015 base date that applies to this action, Durrani had a rent stabilized lease for the term from April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2016. At all times prior to that lease, dating back to 2005, all of Durrani’s leases were rent stabilized and the owner registered the apartment as stabilized each year. On October 3, 2018, Durrani filed a rent overcharge complaint with the DHCR, alleging that the owner engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deregulate the apartment. The base date for purposes of the DHCR proceeding was October 3, 2014. Upon receiving the complaint, the owner reviewed the apartment’s rent history going back to 2000, the apartment’s initial year. The owner discovered that the initial lease for the apartment (from January 15, 2000 through January 30, 2002) set forth a “legal” rent of $5,862.50 and a “preferential” rent of $3,350. The owner recalculated the rent based upon the $3,350 preferential rent charged to and paid by the initial tenant and confirmed that Durrani had in fact been undercharged for most of his tenancy. The $6,100 rent Durrani was paying on the October 3, 2014 base date (i.e., the base date for purposes of the DHCR complaint) was completely legal; in fact, the owner could have lawfully charged $6,174.19. Following the expiration of J-51 tax benefits for the subject building on June 30, 2014, the owner believed that Apartment 2J became exempt from rent stabilization and entered into deregulated leases with Durrani for the two-year periods commencing on April 1, 2016 and on April 1, 2018. In the course of responding to Durrani’s DHCR complaint, the owner determined that a proper J-51 rider had not been included in all of Durrani’s leases through the J-51 expiration date. Based on all of the foregoing, the owner recalculated the rent back to 2000. On April 11, 2018, six months before the commencement of the instant action, the owner sent a refund check to Durrani, including 9 percent statutory interest, in the amount of $19,937.60. Through his counsel, Durrani rejected the check as inadequate. The owner also lowered Durrani’s rent from $6,750 to $6,174.19 effective May 1, 2019. On April 11, 2019, the owner registered the apartment as rent stabilized for the years 2016 through 2018. The owner has annually registered the apartment as rent stabilized ever since. Durrani currently has a two-year rent stabilized lease for the period from April 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022, which sets forth a legal rent of $6,584.23 and a preferential rent of $6,328.54. Durrani has been paying the lower preferential rent. On November 6, 2019, the DHCR’s Rent Administrator (RA) issued an order terminating the rent overcharge proceeding, predicated on Durrani’s October 28, 2019 withdrawal of the DHCR complaint “without prejudice.” Monaghan Monaghan is the first and only tenant of Apartment 3F, taking occupancy pursuant to a rent stabilized vacancy lease commencing July 1, 2000. Monaghan’s lease in effect on the June 14, 2015 base date that applies to this action was rent stabilized. All prior leases had been rent stabilized, and the apartment had been so registered each year. On February 28, 2017, Monaghan filed a rent overcharge complaint with the DHCR, alleging that the owner engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deregulate the apartment. The base date for purposes of the DHCR proceeding was February 28, 2013. Monaghan’s initial 2000 lease recited a “legal” rent of $5,337.50, and a “preferential” rent, which Monaghan actually paid, of $3,050. Because of the mistaken “preferential” rent in Monaghan’s 2000 lease, the owner recalculated Monaghan’s rent back to the $3,050 “preferential” rent actually charged in 2000 and determined that Monaghan’s rent on the February 28, 2013 base date (for purposes of the DHCR complaint) was lawful, as were all subsequent rents. Monaghan was erroneously offered a deregulated lease commencing January 1, 2016. Monaghan never signed that lease and has been a month-to-month tenant since December 31, 2015. In the course of responding to Monaghan’s DHCR complaint, the owner determined that a proper J-51 rider had not been included in all of Monaghan’s leases through the J-51 expiration date. Monaghan has been charged the base date rent of $4,425.24 at all times from the June 14, 2015 base date (for the purpose of the instant action) to the present and thus the owner did not collect any overcharges at any point from the base date to the present. In July 2018, the owner registered the apartment as rent stabilized for the years 2016 through 2018. Registrations have been filed for every year thereafter. On November 19, 2019, the RA issued an order terminating the rent overcharge proceeding, predicated on Monaghan’s withdrawal of his complaint “without prejudice.” Yun/Lee Yun and Lee (collectively, Yun) took occupancy of Apartment 2E pursuant to a rent stabilized vacancy lease commencing January 1, 2009. On October 26, 2016, Yun filed a rent overcharge complaint with the DHCR. The base date in the DHCR proceeding was October 26, 2012. After receiving the rent overcharge complaint, the owner reviewed the apartment’s rent records going back to the initial rent stabilization date of January 1, 2000. The owner discovered that the initial 2000 lease for the apartment set forth a “legal” rent of $4,375 and a “preferential” rent of $2,500. The owner thus recalculated the base date legal rent based upon the $2,500 “preferential” rent charged to and paid by the initial tenant. The owner also determined that because it failed to include a J-51 notice within each of Yun’s leases, the subject apartment remained rent stabilized and Yun’s two deregulated leases (from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2016, at $5,150 per month, and January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2018 at $5,550 per month) were issued in error. The owner then recalculated the rent back to January 1, 2000. The owner’s calculations established that Yun had never been overcharged and had in fact been undercharged. The owner had annually registered the apartment as rent stabilized from 2000 through 2014. On December 21, 2017, the owner registered the apartment as rent stabilized for years 2016 and 2017. The apartment has been registered as rent stabilized thereafter. The RA agreed with owner’s calculation methodology and issued an order on December 23, 2018 finding no overcharge. Yun thereafter requested reconsideration of the order, pointing out that the RA had treated January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2016 deregulated lease as having a “legal” rent of $6,091.32, and a “preferential” rent of $5,150 when in fact a deregulated lease cannot have a preferential rent. As such, Yun argued that the rent for the period from January 1, 2017 forward had to be recalculated based on the $5,150 rent, not the mistaken $6,091.32 “legal” rent. The owner then recalculated Yun’s 2017-2018 rent and determined that there was an overcharge of $387.70 per month for the 32-month period from January 1, 2017 through August 31, 2019. On August 20, 2019, the owner forwarded a check to Yun for the entire overcharge, with 9 percent interest, totaling $13,940.60. Yun executed a rent stabilized lease for the period December 1, 2019 to November 30, 2021 at the reduced rent of $5,289.31. On November 21, 2019, the RA issued an order terminating the rent overcharge and reconsideration proceedings, predicated on Yun’s withdrawal of the complaint “without prejudice.” Armstrong/Mancini/Propel-ant Inc. Armstrong, Mancini and Propel-Ant Inc. (collectively, Armstrong) moved into Apartment 3B on May 15, 2008 pursuant to a rent stabilized lease reciting a “legal” rent of $6,943.02 and a “preferential” rent of $3,600. Armstrong, like the other tenants herein, paid the lower “preferential” rent in the initial lease, irrespective of the higher “legal” rent preserved. Following the expiration of the J-51 tax benefits, the owner, apparently believing that the apartment had become permanently exempt, gave Armstrong a deregulated renewal lease that recited a rent of $4,750. On July 31, 2017, Armstrong filed a rent overcharge complaint with the DHCR. Upon receipt of the complaint, the owner reviewed the apartment’s rent records going back to the initial year of 2000. The owner discovered that the initial lease for the apartment (from December 1, 1999 through November 30, 2001) stated a “legal” rent of $4,112.50 and a “preferential” rent of $2,350. The owner recalculated the base date legal rent grounded on the $2,350 preferential rent paid by the initial tenant. In the course of responding to Armstrong’s DHCR complaint, the owner determined that a proper J-51 rider had not been included in all of Armstrong’s leases through the J-51 expiration date. The owner also determined that Armstrong was inadvertently overcharged $105.00 per month from the months of May 2017 through September 2017 and tendered a refund to Armstrong for all overcharges, including statutory interest, within the time to answer the DHCR complaint. The owner intended that Armstrong’s rent would be reduced from $4,950 to $4,845 commencing October 1, 2017. However, Armstrong continued to pay $4,950 per month through September 30, 2020. The owner discovered this error in September 2020 and reduced Armstrong’s rent to $4,845 per month as of October 1, 2020 and gave Armstrong a rent credit for September 2020 of $4,353.44, representing a 36-month refund at $105 per month, plus 9 percent interest. The owner also registered Armstrong’s leases with the DHCR in the April 1, 2016 and April 1, 2017 annual registrations. Armstrong has not renewed the lease following the most recent lease expiration on April 30, 2019. On December 6, 2019, the RA issued an order terminating the rent overcharge proceeding, predicated on Armstrong’s withdrawal of the complaint “without prejudice.” As to Durrani, Yun and Armstrong, Shill includes in his affidavit charts showing the amount charged on the base date and the increases to which the owner was entitled under the percentages established by Rent Guidelines Board. Fraudulent Scheme Plaintiffs base their argument that the owner engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deregulate their apartments upon the owner’s filing of registrations and issuance of leases which recite an inflated legal regulated rent while designating the actual legal regulated rent as a “preferential rent.” However, the Regina court noted that “[f]raud consists of ‘evidence [of] a representation of material fact, falsity, scienter, reliance and injury’” (Regina, 35 NY3d at 356 n 7, quoting Vermeer Owners v. Guterman, 78 NY2d 1114, 1116 [1991]) and stated that “conduct cannot be fraudulent without being willful” (Regina, 35 NY3d at 356). The court further noted that willfulness means “consciously and knowingly charg[ing]…improper rent” (Regina, 35 NY3d at 356 n 7, quoting Matter of Lavanant v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 148 AD2d 185, 190 [1st Dept 1989]). The mere inclusion on the annual registration of an inflated “legal regulated rent” to which the owner would not be entitled, along with a purported “preferential rent” (the rent actually charged to the tenant) cannot be considered fraudulent as there is no allegation that plaintiffs relied upon any fictitious statements in the registrations and leases regarding the amount of the legal regulated rent. Further, the “preferential rents,” representing the amount legally collectible by the owner, were the rents actually charged to plaintiffs. As the improper higher rental amount was not actually charged to any of the plaintiffs, there is no showing of willful conduct on the part of the owner aiming to deregulate the subject units, nor is there a showing that the reliability of the rent charged on the base date was tainted (see Sandlow v. 305 Riverside Corp., 69 Misc 3d 893, 916-917 [Sup Ct, NY County 2020]; Anderson A To Anderson G LLC v. Sanchez, 68 Misc 3d 436, 445 [Civ Ct, Bronx County 2020]). Moreover, a finding that the owner has not engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deregulate is consistent with the DHCR’s findings in Matter of Bowlus, which dealt with the identical issues and arguments that are set forth by plaintiffs herein. As there is no showing of a fraudulent scheme, the default formula is inapplicable, and any alleged overcharges must be calculated upon the rents charged on the base date (June 14, 2015). The court rejects plaintiffs’ arguments that the base date for each plaintiff should otherwise be four years prior to each plaintiffs now discontinued DHCR complaints. While a party may be collaterally estopped from challenging the determination of a base date in a prior proceeding (see Conason, 25 NY3d at 11), collateral estoppel applies only where an identical issue was “neccesarily decided” in a prior action or proceeding (Parker v. Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 349 [1999]; Ryan v. New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 500 [1984]). The base date was never “necessarily decided” in any of the now discontinued prior DHCR proceedings involving plaintiffs.3 Rent Freeze Plaintiffs further argue that they are entitled to a rent freeze from the dates of the initial registrations of their apartments due to the “improper” reserving of a legal regulated rent higher than the amount initially charged, which was designated as a “preferential rent.” RSL §26-517 (e) requires landlords to “file a proper and timely initial or annual rent registration statement,” which means a statement of the “rent charged on the registration date” (RSL §26-517 [a]). Despite the inclusion of an inflated legal regulated rent, the rent registration statements here recorded the actual amounts of rent charged to plaintiffs, which amounts also comported with the leases in effect. The rent registration statements thus cannot be deemed “improper” under the RSL (see Matter of Enriquez v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 166 AD3d 404, 404 [1st Dept 2018]; Heights Assoc. v. Bautista, 178 Misc 2d 669, 671-672 [App Term, 2d Dept 1998] ["the purpose of [RSL §26-517 (e)] is to impose a penalty for the failure to register and not to supply a basis for the calculation of rent overcharges where a landlord registers an incorrect amount”]). Overcharge Claims While plaintiffs are not entitled to a determination of rent using the default formula or a rent freeze dating to the time of the filing of initial registrations, defendant has not otherwise established entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint in its entirety with respect to plaintiffs Armstrong, Mancini, Propel-ant Inc., Yun/Lee and Durrani.4 Among defendant’s arguments in favor of summary judgment is that the conceded overcharges to these plaintiffs have been duly returned with interest pursuant to the DHCR’s “safe harbor” policy provision and the overcharges cannot therefore be deemed willful for purposes of assessing treble damages. DHCR Policy Statement 89-2 contains a regulatory exception known as the “safe harbor,” which provides that a landlord can meet its burden of proof to establish “the lack of willfulness,” and “therefore, the treble damages penalty is not applicable [w]here an owner adjusts the rent on his or her own within the time afforded to furnish DHCR with an initial response when initially served with the overcharge complaint initiated by the tenant, and submits proof to the DHCR that he or she has tendered, in good faith, to the tenant, a full refund by check or cash of all excess rent collected, plus interest” (DHCR Policy Statement 89-2)(emphasis added). With respect to Durrani and Yun/Lee, Shill does not indicate in his affidavit, nor does any exhibit clearly establish, that the purported refunds of overcharges with interest were made by the owner within the time afforded to furnish the DHCR with an initial response. As such, defendant has not established prima facie that the overcharges were not willful, and there remains an issue of fact as to whether plaintiffs are entitled to an award of treble damages on the overcharge amounts. Further, there remains an issue of fact as to overcharges to Armstrong following the enactment of the HSTPA. Even if these overcharges were returned by the owner, the new statute abrogates the DHCR’s safe harbor policy, providing that “[a]fter a complaint of rent overcharge has been filed and served on an owner, the voluntary adjustment of the rent and/or the voluntary tender of a refund of rent overcharges shall not be considered by the Division of Housing and Community Renewal or a court of competent jurisdiction as evidence that the overcharge was not willful” (Administrative Code §26-516 [a], as amended by L 2019, ch 36, part F, §4). Further, Mancini submits an affidavit in opposition disputing that the owner issued a credit for the rent paid in September 2020. Thus, issues of fact exist as to Armstrong’s entitlement to an overcharge award and treble damages. Pursuant to CPLR 3001, “[t]he supreme court may render a declaratory judgment…as to the rights and other legal relations of the parties to a justiciable controversy.” “A justiciable controversy is a real dispute between adverse parties, involving substantial legal interests, for which a declaration of rights will have some practical effect” (Downe v. Rothman, 215 AD2d 716, 717 [2d Dept 1995]). As there is no dispute that all of the subject apartments are rent stabilized so long as plaintiffs are in occupancy thereof, that part of defendant’s motion seeking dismissal of the claim for a judgment declaring that plaintiffs’ tenancies are rent stabilized is dismissed. Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted as to all claims of Monaghan and as to plaintiffs’ claim for a declaratory judgment that plaintiffs’ tenancies are rent stabilized. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is further granted in relation to all claims predicated upon fraud and the freezing of rent from the date of the initial registrations. Said claims are hereby dismissed. The motion is otherwise denied as to the remaining claims of Armstrong, Mancini, Propel-ant Inc., Yun, Lee and Durrani, as discussed herein. The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court. Dated: June 7, 2021
