In a February 3, 2011 petition, landlord sought possession of the premises for the nonpayment of rent in the total amount of $1,559.93, representing partial monthly arrears from September 2006 through February 2011. By motion dated April 20, 2011, landlord sought to amend its petition to allege additional monthly arrears, totaling $426.32, based upon the Court of Appeals' decision in Matter of Casado v Markus (16 NY3d 329 [2011]), decided March 24, 2011. The alleged additional arrears were based upon the dollar-amount increases permitted by Rent Guidelines Board Orders (RGBOs) 40 and 41, which landlord alleged allowed for an additional increase of $11.22 per month and $18.23 per month for, respectively, the renewal leases commencing October 1, 2008, and October 1, 2009. Landlord subsequently also moved for summary judgment. Tenant opposed landlord's motions, cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the petition, and sought leave to conduct discovery on an overcharge counterclaim he had interposed. In an order dated October 17, 2011, the Civil Court granted{**75 Misc 3d at 37} landlord's motion for leave to amend the petition, denied landlord's motion for summary judgment and the branch of tenant's cross motion seeking summary judgment, and granted the branch of tenant's cross motion seeking leave to conduct discovery. Subsequently, in a so-ordered stipulation, the parties agreed [*2]that landlord was to provide certain discovery related to tenant's claim of overcharge by a date certain, or else the petition would be "deemed stricken." It is undisputed that landlord timely provided responses.