Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219 (a) of the papers considered in review of this motion by NYSCEF Doc Nos: 5-9, 11-22, 39-48, 51. DECISION AND ORDER BACKGROUND The Current Proceeding This is a summary holdover proceeding against Nora Pritchard on the basis that she is either a licensee or a squatter in what is pleaded as a rent stabilized premises. (NYSCEF Doc No. 1, petition at 3, notice to quit dated October 31, 2023; RPAPL 713 [7].) Petitioner, 1334 B LLC, was transferred ownership of the building by deed recorded with the City Register on June 28, 2023. The notice to quit, signed by “Roy Rave, Managing Member” states, “The premises are subject to Rent Control, Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 as amended or to the emergency (sic) Tenant Protection Act of 1974 however the occupants are not tenants as they never paid rent or entered into a tenancy with the owner.” (Id.) Petitioner demands $2,500 per month in use and occupancy. (NYSCEF Doc No. 1, petition 10.) The petition is verified by Nissan Shapiro, Esq. on behalf of “Roy Rave — Managing Agent.” Mr. Shapiro is a partner in the law firm of Epstein, Schreier & Shapiro, LLP. According to the New York Department of State searchable database, the law firm incorporated in October 2023. The firm comprises three attorneys formerly in solo practice, Benjamin Z. Epstein, Esq., Nissan Shapiro, Esq., and Jonathan Schreier, Esq. Petitioner served respondent with the notice to quit on November 3, 2023. (NYSCEF Doc No. 1 at 3-4, notice to quit and affidavit of service.) The petition was filed on November 14, 2023, and noticed to be heard on May 28, 2024 as a “new part” case to enable respondent to seek counsel through the Universal Access to Counsel (“UAC”) initiative. Unfortunately, respondent did not obtain counsel.1 On July 15, 2024, the second appearance of the proceeding on the court’s calendar, respondent, pro se, entered into a stipulation by which she agreed to a final judgment of possession, with the warrant of eviction to issue to issue forthwith and stayed two months until September 15, 2024. Respondent signed the stipulation in the hallway prior to allocution pursuant to RPAPL 746. (NYSCEF Doc No. 5 at 5, proposed stipulation.) Alleged conditions in need of repair were not included in the stipulation, standard practice in Housing Court and required by the court’s rules.2 Upon allocution of the fully executed stipulation as is statutorily required by RPAPL 746, respondent apprised the court of the following alleged facts: Respondent stated that she has lived in the premises for over 20 years, and currently lives with her [autistic] adult son who was present in court. Respondent stated that her last rent stabilized lease was not renewed by the prior owner, and she believes her rent was $1,600 per month. Respondent alleged that her Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program subsidy was terminated due the condition of the apartment, and, if true, would be due to violations of Housing Quality Standards prescribed by the program. Respondent believes that she is the last rent stabilized tenant in the building. Respondent alleged that all other tenants pay market rent, and that petitioner offered her a “buyout.” Respondent stated that she could not accept the alleged buyout offer because she felt it would be too difficult to find an affordable apartment, especially with a disabled adult son who is prone to constant, disruptive outbursts and will not leave her side. The court comprehended that the agreement, if the court so ordered it, would result in the eviction of an individual who considered herself to be a long-term, rent stabilized tenant and single mother, whose Section 8 subsidy was likely terminated through no fault of her own.3 The court then requested the presence of Mr. Shapiro in the courtroom to assist the court in understanding the factual canyon between the pleadings and respondent’s statements made during allocution. Mr. Shapiro stated to the court that he had not heard any of the respondent’s allegations before, that his client had tried to obtain information about the premises prior to commencing this proceeding, that petitioner could not determine who resided in the premises, and that, based on the foregoing, petitioner asked Mr. Shapiro to commence this combined licensee/squatter holdover proceeding. The proceeding was adjourned to August 15, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. for all purposes. Between the morning and afternoon sessions on July 15, 2024, the court gleaned the following facts from information readily available to the court, and to owners of rent stabilized buildings (the regulatory status pleaded by petitioner): The building is an eight-unit building. Respondent’s apartment was registered with the Department of Housing and Community Renewal (“DHCR”) as recently as November 28, 2023, at a monthly rental of $2,850.00. (NYSCEF Doc No. 5 at 6.) Nora Pritchard is the named tenant of record. The printout states, “Reason actual rent paid differs from legal: Tenant never pays.” In fact, the DHCR records (later provided to the court and available at all times to petitioner) indicate that respondent has been the registered tenant of record since 2003 (NYSCEF Doc No. 21 at 21, DHCR 2003 registration rent roll report). The DHCR rent registration history reflects respondent received Section 8 benefits since at least 2005, NYSCEF Doc No. 13 at 3-4, that apartment was registered as vacant (“RS-V”) with a legal regulated rent of $1,433.36 in 2022, Id. at 5, and that in 2023, after the purported vacancy, the registered rent in 2023 was registered at $2,850.00, which represents an increase of $1,416.64. (Id.) The petition which seeks use and occupancy at a rate of $2,500.00. (NYSCEF Doc No. 1 at 1, petition 10.) While, substantively, this is likely a moot point at this juncture, this is a pleading error inconsistent with public records and the rent registered by petitioner itself. The court look judicial notice pursuant to Multiple Dwelling Law §328 (3) that respondent’s apartment had approximately 40 open Housing Maintenance Code violations originally placed by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (“HPD”) between 2021 and July 2023. Most recently, on July 6, 2023, 20 violations were placed by HPD, 19 of which are “C” class violations, which are considered immediately hazardous.4 On September 12, 2024, the number of “C” class violations placed on July 6, 2023 appeared on the HPD website as 13, and two additional “C” violations had been placed on July 24, 2024.5 The next day, July 16, 2024, Mr. Shapiro requested to approach the bench and advise the court that he had “looked into it” and “the [premises] was sub rehabbed in 2016″ despite being pleaded and registered as rent stabilized.6 Mr. Shapiro further stated, “I have the DHCR documents.” The ready availability of this purported documentation does not explain why the apartment status — i.e. regulated or deregulated — had not been verified prior to the commencement of the proceeding, or why the proceeding was brought as a licensee/squatter proceeding if it were true that respondent was, in fact, a long-term rent stabilized tenant who was in residence during the purported substantial rehabilitation of the building. The court verbally indicated to Mr. Shapiro that it was becoming apparent further investigation of the facts should have been conducted prior to filing and affirming the truth of the facts pleaded in the petition, even if pleaded upon information and belief from information provided by his client. The next day, the court issued an order that a hearing would be held on August 15, 2024, to enable Mr. Shapiro a fair opportunity to explain these inconsistent representations and to avoid the possibility of sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 et seq. (NYSCEF Doc No. 5, decision and order dated July 16, 2024.) Were the alleged facts and circumstances determined to be true, the court’s original intention was to admonish Mr. Shapiro that he is obligated as an attorney to diligently investigate the truth of facts alleged in a verified petition. In an attempt to better understand the true regulatory status of the premises and respondent’s connection to the premises, the court performed a simple search on NYBench for respondent’s name,7 and discovered that “Nora Pritchard” had been sued for nonpayment of rent pursuant to a “written lease” for the same apartment in 2017. (Silvershore Properties 93, LLC v. Nora Pritchard, Civ Ct, Kings county, index No. LT-065103/17.) The pre-NYSCEF information recorded on NYBench indicated that Benjamin Epstein, Esq. was the attorney of record for the former owner, Silvershore Properties. The proceeding had not been active for some time; however, neither had it been discontinued or administratively dismissed. In fact, respondent retained the Legal Aid Society to represent her in that case. After the hard file had been converted to NYSCEF on August 5, 2024, the Legal Aid Society consented to participation on NYSCEF on August 7, 2024. The Prior Proceeding Respondent was sued for nonpayment of rent in April 2017 in the amount of $22,552.36, pursuant to a “written rental agreement.” (Id.) The petition pleaded the subject premises were rent stabilized, despite Mr. Shapiro’s information that the premises was substantially deregulated in 2016. (NY St Cts Elec Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 3, legacy file for index No. LT-065103/17 at 1, petition
