DECISION AND ORDER After careful consideration of the papers submitted and arguments heard, the court finds as follows. Respondent’s motion seeking to reargue this court’s decision dated 12/24/2020 denying respondent’s motion for discovery, is granted. The court erred in denying respondent’s request for discovery regarding the unexplained increases in rent, rendering the subject apartment being listed as permanently exempt from rent regulation effective March 26, 2017. As respondent is contesting the regulatory status of the premises, she is entitled to review the rental history dating back more than four years. East West Renovating Co. v. DHCR, 16 AD 3d 166(1st Sept. 1995). As petitioner has not offered any explanation as to these alleged discrepancies, and the information needed to determine how the rent increases were calculated to deregulate the premises is within its’ exclusive control and/or knowledge, respondent has demonstrated “ample need” for discovery. New York University v.Farkas, 121 Misc2d 643, 468 NYS2d 808(Civ.Ct 1983). The court will however, limit discovery to the production of documents contained in respondent’s Notice of Discovery and Inspection #1-#10 as it applies to Apartment 5 only and from 2013. No prejudice will occur to the petitioner by this order as the court will further direct all discovery to be completed within thirty (30) days of receipt of this decision. Accordingly, respondent’s motion to reargue and for leave to conduct discovery is granted. Petitioner shall provide the documents requested as outlined in this order within thirty (30) days. Proceeding may be restored by motion or stipulation to Part H upon completion of discovery. This constitutes the decision and order of the court. Dated: July 21, 2023
