Recitation, as required by CPLR Rule 2219(A), of the papers considered in the review of Respondent’s Motion for Leave to Interpose an Amended Answer and for Discovery and Petitioner’s Cross-Motion for Leave to Interpose an Amended Petition:Papers NumberedRespondent’s Notice of Motion With Supporting Affirmation, Affidavit & Exhs A-G 1Petitioner’s Notice of Motion With Supporting Affirmation & Exh 1-9 2Affidavit in Reply 3DECISION & ORDERUpon the foregoing papers, Respondent’s motion for leave to interpose an Amended Answer and for discovery, and Petitioner’s cross-motion to interpose an Amended Petition, which are consolidated herein for determination, are decided as follows.PROCEDURAL HISTORY & FACTUAL BACKGROUNDThis is a nonpayment eviction proceeding brought by Petitioner-Landlord BSP 1908 Belmont 1, LLC & BSP 1908 Belmont 2, LLC against Respondent-Tenant Alexis Tavarez. The petition, dated December 7, 2017, seeks rent and additional rent of $8500, comprised of a monthly rent of $1650 for the months of August 2017 through December 2017 plus a legal fee of $250. The petition states in paragraph 7 that the premises are not subject to Rent Stabilization or Rent Control because they were “destabilized as a result of luxury decontrol” and “[t]here is no tax abatement on the building that restabilized the apartment.”Respondent answered the petition on December 26, 2017, using the Court’s form “Answer in Person” (CIV-LT-91 rev’d Oct 2014) and asserting a “General Denial”. Respondent retained counsel after the first court appearance and has now moved to amend the answer to include, inter alia, a specific denial of paragraph 7 of the petition, an affirmative defense that the petition “mischaracterizes the regulatory status of the apartment as it claims the apartment was deregulated due to high rent vacancy” and a counterclaim for attorney’s fees.Respondent’s attorney asserts that, contrary to its assertions in the petition herein, in another proceeding pending in this court against another tenant in the same building Petitioner claims that the premises are subject to Rent Stabilization. Causing further confusion, Respondent argues, is the fact that Petitioner has moved to amend the petition in that other proceeding to state that the premises are not subject to rent regulation because the tenant moved in after they were “substantially rehabilitated”. Because of these “discrepancies with how the regulatory status of the apartments throughout the building has been plead”, Respondent’s Attorney’s Affirmation at19, Respondent argues that the petition is subject to dismissal and amendment of the answer should be permitted, citing to CPLR R 3025(b) which states that “[l]eave shall be freely given” to a party seeking to amend a pleading.Further, Respondent moves for discovery and argues that “ample need” pursuant to CPLR §408 and relevant case law has been shown to require Petitioner to produce documents “solely related to how the apartment became deregulated.” Respondent’s Attorney’s Affirmation at28; see also id. at
