Respondents argue that they made several complaints in 2025 regarding conditions in her apartment. Specifically, respondent Kohut stated that on or about March 19, 2025, she called Con Edison complaining that the electricity in her apartment was shut off. The Kohut affirmation states that approximately three years prior, she called Con Edison and inquired why her electricity bill was so high when only two people lived in her apartment. The Kohut affirmation details that Con Edison determined that the meter from her apartment also provided electricity to another apartment in the subject premises, and Con Edison called this a "shared meter" situation (see Kohut Affirmation, Exhibit "D"). Respondent detailed that she no longer had a separate electricity bill and that Con Edison sent the bill directly to the petitioner. She further contends that petitioner failed to make payments to Con Edison resulting in her decision to make many payments to Con Edison to keep the electricity on in her apartment. She stated that eventually, she could not afford to keep paying for her electricity and the electricity of other tenants. [*4]Consequently, she brought an Order to Show Cause before this Court on September 12, 2025, seeking an order directing the petitioner to pay the outstanding Con Edison bill. After a contentious hearing where both respondent and petitioner testified, this Court granted the respondent's request and directed the petitioner/landlord to pay the outstanding bill within seven days of the order (see Kohut Affirmation, Exhibit "G").