The motion court erred insofar as it granted plaintiffs summary judgment determining that defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme with respect to apartments 1B, 2C and 5C that would justify using the Rent Stabilization Code default formula to determine their legal rents and overcharges. It is undisputed that [*3]the units were listed in DHCR registrations as "permanently exempt" from rent stabilization due to "high rent vacancy" in 2002 and 2003, and that defendants failed to treat them as rent stabilized when they began receiving J-51 benefits in 2005 (see Roberts v Tishman Speyer Props., L.P., 13 NY3d 270, 286 [2009]; Gersten v 56 7th Ave. LLC, 88 AD3d 189, 194 [1st Dept 2011]). However, for these purposes, fraud requires "evidence of a representation of material fact, falsity, scienter, reliance and injury" (Regina, 35 NY3d at 356 n 7). Here, plaintiffs did not put in a sworn statement by any of the tenants or anyone with personal knowledge and failed to otherwise demonstrate the elements of a claim of a fraudulent scheme. The initial failure to treat these units as rent stabilized upon receipt of J-51 benefits, based on a misinterpretation of the law, cannot be deemed fraudulent (see Casey v Whitehouse Estates, Inc., 39 NY3d 1104, 1107 [2023] ["the fraud exception to the lookback rule is generally inapplicable to Roberts overcharge claims"] [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting Regina, 35 NY3d at 356). As to defendants' delay in re-registering the units after Roberts and Gersten, it cannot be said that the record establishes fraud as a matter of law (see Austin v 25 Grove St. LLC, 202 AD3d 429, 430-431 [1st Dept 2022] ["While irregularities in the DHCR rent history and defendants' failure to provide proper rent-stabilized renewal leases raise questions of fact, . . . summary judgment in plaintiff's favor based on a finding of fraud is not warranted at this stage, given the parties' competing contentions as to the reasons for the discrepancies in the DHCR history and questions of scienter"]).