The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion Sequence 012) 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 442, 475, 476, 481, 482, 483, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 517 were read on this motion to/for Summary Judgment after joinder. The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion Sequence 013) 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 443, 477, 478, 479, 480, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 518 were read on this motion to/for Summary Judgment after joinder. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION In this rent overcharge matter, Plaintiffs’ respective motions in Motion Sequence (MS) 012 and MS 013 seek entry of a judgment against defendants and request a hearing on attorneys’ fees. Defendants 316 Bowery Realty Corp, Walsam 316 LLC, Walsam Bowery LLC, Walsam Bleecker LLC, and 316 Bowery Next Generation LLC (collectively “Defendants”)1, all represented by the same counsel, oppose the motions. Defendants’ opposition is untimely. BACKGROUND In September 2013, Plaintiffs who are residential tenants in the building known as 4-6 Bleecker Street, commenced this action for a declaration that their apartments were subject to the Rent Stabilization Law and sought to recover the alleged overcharged rent from defendant 4-6 Bleecker Street LLC (Bleecker), the net lessee, and defendant 316 Bowery Realty Corp. (Bowery Realty), the building owner. Defendants moved for summary judgment and Plaintiffs cross-moved for the same. Another justice of this court found in favor of Plaintiffs declaring that Plaintiffs’ respective apartments were protected by the Rent Stabilization Law and granted partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on their rent overcharge claims, but stated that discovery was needed to determine the legal regulated rent for Plaintiffs’ respective apartments (NYSCEF # 419 — Order of Hon. Joan A. Madden, dated October 14, 2015, and entered January 13, 2016).2 While Justice Madden found in favor of Plaintiffs, Justice Madden stated that an award for the rent overcharge could not be made based on the record before the court (id. at 11). Noting that the rental history for certain apartments were “neither reliable nor adequate,” and the registration history “inconsistent and incomplete,” Justice Madden opined that “the DHCR’s default formula may be ‘the appropriate vehicle for fixing the base date rent’” (id). In a subsequent motion (MS 006), Plaintiffs informed that no additional evidence exists and argued for the application of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s (DHCR) default formula as codified in section 2526.1(g) of the Rent Stabilization Code (RSC) for the determination of the legal rent for their apartments (NYSCEF # 287 — Decision and Order of Hon. Joan A. Madden, dated May 31, 2017). Defendants opposed Plaintiffs’ argument. Justice Madden, finding Defendants’ arguments “not persuasive”, a “rehash” on Defendants’ prior motions to reargue and renew, “bare and conclusory” (id. at 7), determined that the default formula codified in RSC §2526.1(g)(1) to be the methodology to calculate Plaintiffs’ rent overcharge — that is, “the legal rent for their apartments is the lowest rent registered for an apartment in the building comparable to their own apartments on the date they first took occupancy” (id at 9). And Justice Madden concluded that Plaintiffs are entitled to treble damages (id. at 12). FACTS As a result of the May 31 order, the parties agreed to have the building inspected by Lauren Silk, a licensed residential real estate broker for over eleven years and a practicing commercial real estate attorney for more than three years, to assess comparable apartments to those of Plaintiffs (NYSCEF # 422 and # 436 — Silk Report, 1). Silk looked at other apartments in the building and considered the size, location, number of rooms in making her assessment. Silk issued a Broker Report on her findings that offered comparables on Plaintiffs’ respective apartments based on DHCR’s rent roll (id. at 4; NYSCEF # 425 — DHCR Rent Roll Report). Plaintiffs now seek entry of a judgment on the overcharge damages. The instant motions (MS 012 and MS 013) reflect Silks’ findings on the rents in the apartments at 4-6 Bleecker Street that are comparable to Plaintiffs’ respective apartments (Silk Report). Defendants offer no opposition to the method or the calculations for the overcharge and treble damages. A review of Plaintiffs’ calculations for the four apartments at issue show that, in arriving at the amount of the overcharge, Plaintiffs first calculated Silk’s comparable base rents to the number of months and years that each of the Plaintiffs resided in their apartment. The amount of rent paid for those periods are supported by Plaintiffs’ respective affidavits and leases (NYSCEF ## 77-80). Plaintiffs calculated the overcharge amount from four years prior to the commencement of this action to the last day Plaintiffs paid rent (RSL §26-516[a][2]; Zafra v. Pilkes, 245 AD2d 218 [1st Dept 1997]). Plaintiffs then added up the amount of their respective monthly rent and set off that total amount against the amount of the comparable rent total to arrive at the overcharge amount for each plaintiff. Plaintiffs’ calculation of treble damages was limited to the two years prior to the commencement of the case in September 2011 through October 2015 (RSL §26-516[a][2]). Interest was then assessed for the months that were excluded from the treble damages calculation (RSL §26-516[a]; RSC §2526.1[d]). In sum, Plaintiffs properly calculated the overcharges, interest, and treble damages to arrive at the total amount due to each of the four Plaintiffs pursuant to RSL §26-516[a][2]. The amount due to plaintiff Arnold is $299,993.76; the amount due to plaintiff Schiller is $333,405.72; the amount due to plaintiff Lazarus is $37,548.38; and the amount due to plaintiff Rocha is $111,349.06. These amounts are exclusive of attorney’s fees. The award of attorney’s fees was addressed in Justice Madden’s Order dated May 31, 2017 (NYSCEF # 287 or # 434). Upon awarding Plaintiffs treble damages, Justice Madden stated that “under the circumstances presented, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees” (May 31, 2017 order at 12). However, with the recent passage of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA), the amounts due to Plaintiffs must be amended. As required by CPLR 4511(a), this court takes judicial notice of the public statutes of New York (see Chanler v. Manocherian, 151 AD2d 432, 433 [1st Dept 1989] ["refusal to take judicial notice of pertinent laws and regulations constitutes reversible error"]). The HSTPA amended Section 26-516(a) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York to expand the overcharge period from four (4) to six (6) years before the filing of an overcharge complaint, and the treble damages period to also six (6) years (HSTPA, Part F, Sec. 4). As the HSTPA was passed during the pendency of this matter, Plaintiffs may recalculate the amounts owed on the overcharge and treble damages amounts. Defendants’ Objections Defendants’ opposition is untimely even after they were afforded a lengthy extension to submit opposition papers (NYSCEF # 484). Plaintiffs complain that this delay is typical of Defendants’ tactics throughout this action (id,
27-28). A review of Defendants’ opposition confirms Plaintiffs’ complaints about Defendants’ late submission. Plaintiffs Lazarus and Rochas rejects Defendants’ opposition (NYSCEF # 481 — Notice of Rejection). Plaintiffs Arnold and Schiller objects to the untimely opposition but did not formally reject it. As the opposition is twenty-seven days late, it is rejected as untimely. Even if it were not rejected, the opposition warrants dismissal as the contentions are without merit, unsupported, or belied by the record. Because Defendants tend to repeat their arguments, their objections will be laid out in an effort to fend off repetitive arguments in their future motions in this matter. Defendants objections to MS 12 and 13 are: (1) the motions are premature as discovery is incomplete; (2) a pending motion precludes Plaintiffs’ motions; (3) Silk is not qualified to valuate the apartments; (4) Defendants’ attorneys were denied access to inspect the premises with their own expert; (5) res judicata and collateral estoppel bar Plaintiffs’ instant summary judgment motion since Justice Madden denied summary judgment as to a determination of the legal rent and directed discovery (NYSCEF # 475, 26); and (6) Plaintiffs lacks evidentiary proof to support a summary judgment motion. 1. Discovery Defendants argue that discovery is needed, demanded, and ignored in this overcharge matter, hence Plaintiffs’ instant motions should be stayed pending discovery. A review of the motions in this matter shows that this “discovery is needed” argument is not a new one. This discovery argument, which stemmed from Justice Madden’s Decision and Order (MS 002) declaring that Plaintiffs’ apartments are protected by the Rent Stabilization Law and that treble damages are warranted, appears in MS 006, 010, and 011 (NYSCEF ## 49, 185, 372, 379, 387, and 516). Enough has been said on Defendants’ recurring discovery arguments. 2. Pending Motion The objection that a pending motion precludes Plaintiffs’ instant motion is moot. That pending motion (MS 011) was Defendants’ motion to reargue/renew this court’s May 15, 2018 Order on motion (MS 010) which was brought by a different party, not Defendants, and which Defendants neither joined nor opposed (NYSCEF # 516 — Decision and Order dated April 12, 2019). Motion 11 was decided by Decision and Order dated April 12, 2019. Notably, the April 12 order denied Defendants’ request for discovery against Plaintiffs “as the parties agreed and stipulated that the only discovery remaining or needed relates to the defendants’ cross-claims. The discovery pertaining to Plaintiffs was complete” (id.). 3. Admissibility of Silk’s Report Silk’s qualification as an expert witness was not contested. Indeed, no objection was raised on Silk’s ability at the inspection or after the issuance of Silk’s report until these defendants’ late opposition to the instant motions. The objections to Silk and her report are conclusory and unsupported. In any event, Defendants’ argument goes to the weight and not the admissibility of Silk’s report. 4. Denial of Access to the Premises for an Inspection Defendants’ assertion that they were denied access to inspect the premises with their own expert is belied by the record. Nithin Jayadeya, from Rosenberg and Estis, the firm representing Defendants, confirmed two agents and himself as the attendees at the inspection (NYSCEF # 495 — Defendants’ email confirming their attendance at the inspection). At the inspection, Jayadeva was seen taking measurements of the apartments (NYSCEF # 485 — Allen Affirmation,
