Respondent alleges that this overcharge was either intentional or reckless, and she seeks punitive
damages.
Respondent now moves for summary judgment under CPLR 3212 (b) on the following
defenses and affirmative defenses: (1) Based on the regulatory agreement, petitioner was not
entitled to increase the rent until repairs were completed; (2) respondent has paid $188.00 a
month in rent since petitioner bought the building and $215.00 a month since December 2004
but that petitioner is not entitled to collect more than $188.00 a month until the repairs are made;
and (3) NYCHA found respondent eligible for a Section 8 voucher, but because the apartment
failed its inspection, she is not required to pay more than $188.00 a month in rent.
Respondent asks that petitioner be barred from seeking any rent above the HUD-level
amount for the period of noncompliance: the time during which petitioner failed to submit
respondent's Section 8 certification documents. Respondent also seeks a judgment on her three
counterclaims. Respondent further requests that the court direct petitioner to correct conditions
that violate the housing standards. Finally, respondent seeks attorney fees.
A party seeking summary judgment "must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to
judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact
from the case." (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985];
accord Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Alvarez v
Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986].) If the party's burden is not met, the motion must
be denied: "Failure to make such showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the
sufficiency of the opposing papers." (Winegrad, 64 NY2d at 853.) Once a movant for