The only consequential difference between the Lease and Amended Lease is the
authorization of late fees in April 2010 and therefore effective May 2010. To the extent
that such fees appear earlier than May 2010 in the ledger (Defs Exh 20), any late
fees prior to May 2010 are stricken.
Finally, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that several fees on the ledger appear to be
anomalous. For example, on January 15, 2017 and March 16, 2017, the ledger lists
charges for $3,234.66 and $2,522.16, respectively, labeled as "interest late fee," whereas
prior charges were more clearly labeled as "1.5% interest late fee." Another entry on
November 17, 2016 lists a "late fee" of $2,397.10. Neither is adequately explained, and
thus these charges, as well as any charge that is not a permissible charge (maintenance,
capital assessments, utilities, a $50.00 late fee, or 1.5% monthly interest) must be stricken
or, in the process of settling the judgment, demonstrated to be a permissible charge.
B. The Corporation's counterclaim for attorneys' fees
As discussed in section (I)(D) above, the Corporation, like Plaintiff, also received
approximately half of the net recovery sought. In addition, its counterclaim for injunctive
relief was denied. Accordingly, the counterclaim for attorneys' fees is denied.
CONCLUSION
This Court's net findings are as follows, to be settled in a judgment by the parties (22
[*14]NYCRR 208.33).[FN19]
On Plaintiff's cause of action for breach of warranty of habitability, Plaintiff is entitled to
a 100% abatement from August 2007 to July 2009,[FN20]
a 0% abatement from August 2009 to September 2013, a 50% abatement from October
2013 to January 2016, a 100% abatement from February 2016 to April 2016, and a 0%