However, with respect to the rent increases for 3A, 4B, 4F and 5E, while defendants concede that they may have made some overcharges, the motion court correctly determined that the record on plaintiffs' summary judgment motion does not establish as a matter of law that such overcharges were part of a "fraudulent scheme to remove an apartment from the protections of rent stabilization . . . . [which] tainted the reliability of the rent on the base date" (Matter of Grimm v State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal Off. of Rent Admin., 15 NY3d 358, 367 [2010]; see also Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 35 NY3d 332, 335-336[2020]). In particular, plaintiffs did not establish that defendants made any misrepresentation of material fact in connection with the rent increases for these units (see id., 35 NY3d at 356 n 7). That the increases were not justified by any major capital improvements (MCI) or individual apartment improvements (IAI) does not establish fraud, as there is no evidence that defendants ever made a statement justifying the increases based on any MCI or IAI and, in fact, defendants, in their interrogatory responses, affirmatively denied making any such statement.