Even if the court could get around the objective component of good faith, the subjective component is still problematic. A good faith complaint requires a good motive. Real Property Law § 223-b (1) (a) is not a tool for gamesmanship. The court finds that Brown's primary goal in making complaints to DGS was to gain a tactical legal advantage.
The court's impression of Brown's testimony was that he was looking for something, anything, so he could file a complaint with the City and thereby extend his lease an additional year. Brown's complaints to the City seemed scripted rather than authentic. Significantly, and fatally to Brown's case, he never produced a single email, letter or text message showing that he complained to MLR about the garbage collection prior to emailing a complaint to DGS. Thus, Brown made no effort to have MLR resolve the trash issue, which would have been a minimal sign of good faith.
The court finds, after carefully reflecting upon the credible evidence, that Brown's complaint of May 18, 2018, and his complaint of July 17, 2018, to DGS about trash collection at 285 State Street were not good faith complaints within the{**62 Misc 3d at 288} meaning of Real Property Law § 223-b (1) (a).[FN4] Consequently, Brown has unlawfully held over after the expiration of his lease. Therefore, the court grants the possession of the second-floor apartment of 285 State Street to MLR together with the costs of this proceeding.