PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND In this nonpayment proceeding, petitioner first alleged that the subject premises is rent stabilized and later sought to amend the petition to reflect that the apartment is deregulated. Respondent moved to amend his answer to claim unlawful deregulation of the premises, overcharge, and, as a result, a defective predicate rent demand. Those motions were settled by stipulation in which respondent accepted the amendment of the petition, and petitioner accepted respondent’s amended answer. (NYSCEF Doc No. 5, stipulation dated November 18, 2019.) Petitioner now moves for summary judgment. Respondent opposes and cross-moves for discovery of the rental history from 1984 to present. Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment sets forth the alleged basis for deregulation, to wit: the apartment was rent controlled in 1984, and exited regulation in 2005 when the former rent-controlled tenant vacated. Petitioner states that that tenant who took possession immediately thereafter was charged a “first rent” which was in excess of the rent stabilization deregulation threshold in effect at the time, and the apartment became a free market rental. Respondent’s opposition rests on the allegation that the apartment has been rent stabilized since at least 1993, when the former rent-controlled tenant vacated, and petitioner falsely claimed that the apartment remained rent controlled until 2005 in order to take advantage of the ability to charge a first rent in excess of the deregulation threshold. Respondent claims to have personal knowledge of this because he worked for petitioner for 10 years until October 2018. (NYSCEF Doc No. 28, Algarin affidavit
5, 11.) Respondent claims through his attorney in opposition that petitioner engaged in a “fraudulent scheme to deregulate the apartment,” and that, as a result, he has been illegally overcharged. (NYSCEF Doc No. 27, respondent’s attorney’s affirmation 48.) The parties rely on various documents to support their claims, most of which, they conceded at oral argument, do not make sense when reviewed as a whole. Much of the oral argument was spent by both parties’ attorneys, and the court, speculating why or how certain events transpired, and why or how it came to be that certain documents were filed or reflected certain information. Respondent’s attorney cites to a lack of registration of the premises with the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (“DHCR”) between 1985 and 1992, and calls the court’s attention to 1993 when the apartment was registered as rent stabilized and rented to Elsie Mujica at a monthly rental of $642.03. (NYSCEF Doc No. 14, petitioner’s exhibit E.) Respondent also submits a maximum base rent (“MBR”) master schedule which indicates, confusingly, that the apartment was registered by petitioner as rented to Elsie Mujica at a rent-controlled maximum base rent of $690.19 in 2008 and $741.96 in 2009, three and four years, respectively after Elsie Mujica purportedly vacated the premises. (NYSCEF Doc No. 40, respondent’s exhibit L.) Respondent also maintains that “illusory leases” between the owner and himself for various apartments show a “deliberate pattern of behavior with the sole goal of deregulating as many units as possible.” (NYSCEF Doc No. 28, Algarin affidavit
