Tenant subsequently moved for what tenant characterized as leave to renew his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition and, upon renewal, to dismiss the petition and "adjudg[e] [landlord] liable for rent overcharge and [for an order] setting this matter down for an inquest on damages." Tenant contended that, due to the inadequacy of landlord's discovery responses, the petition had been "deemed stricken," which entitled tenant to a finding that landlord was "liable for rent overcharge." Thus, what tenant actually sought was the dismissal of the petition for failure to provide discovery (see CPLR 3126 [3]) and summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to his overcharge counterclaim. In the alternative, tenant moved for leave to renew his opposition to landlord's motion for leave to amend the petition. Tenant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court dated November 4, 2019, as denied the branches of tenant's motion seeking, in effect, to dismiss the petition pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) and summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to tenant's overcharge counterclaim, and as, upon renewal, adhered to its original determination granting landlord's motion to amend the petition.