service of the Termination Notice. The elements of petitioner's prima facie case were not
seriously contested. Trial instead focused on respondent's affirmative defenses of retaliatory
eviction and the rent regulatory status of the Apartment.
The court will turn first to respondent's defense alleging retaliatory eviction. The
salient statute provides that:
1. No landlord of premises or units to which this section is applicable shall serve a notice to
quit upon any tenant or commence any action to recover real property or summary proceeding to
recover possession of real property in retaliation for:
[*6]
(a) A good faith complaint, by or in behalf of the tenant,
to a governmental authority of the landlord's alleged violation of any health or safety law,
regulation, code or ordinance, or any law or regulation which has as its objective the regulation
of premises used for dwelling purposes or which pertains to the offense of rent gouging in the
third, second or first degree ;
***
4. In any action to recover real property or
summary proceeding to recover possession of real property, judgment shall be entered for the
tenant if the court finds that the landlo9rd is acting in retaliation for any action set forth in
paragraphs a, b, and c of subdivision one of this section and further finds that the landlord would
not otherwise have commenced such action or proceeding. Retaliation shall be asserted as an
affirmative defense in such action or proceeding. The tenant shall not be relieved of the
obligation to pay any rent for which he is otherwise liable.
5. In an action or proceeding instituted against a tenant of premises or unit to which this
section is applicable, a rebuttable presumption that the landlord is acting in retaliation shall be