The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 were read on this motion for SUMMARY JUDGMENT . The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 74, 75, 76, 77 were read on this motion for DISCOVERY. DECISION ORDER ON MOTION In this residential landlord-tenant action, plaintiff-landlord, Bold Group, LLC, is suing defendant-tenant, Omri Rachmut, and defendant-guarantor, Amir Shriki, for allegedly unpaid rent and use and occupancy (U&O), plus interest and attorney fees. On motion sequence 003, defendants move under CPLR 3212 for (i) summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims; and (ii) summary judgment in defendants’ favor on their counterclaims relating to the asserted absence of an obligation on their part to pay rent, their counterclaim for a return of the security deposit, and their counterclaim for attorney fees. On motion sequence 004, plaintiff moves under CPLR 3124 to compel discovery. Motion sequences 003 and 004 are consolidated here for disposition. Both motions are denied. DISCUSSION 1. On motion sequence 003, defendants argue that they do not owe an obligation to pay rent or U&O because a “rent-impairing violation” within the meaning of Multiple Dwelling Law (MDL) §302-a (2) — namely a serious roof leak — existed of record in the building for the duration of Tenant’s tenancy.1 (See NYSCEF No. 61 at 9.) To support this contention, defendants have provided a copy of an open-violation report maintained by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), listing an open violation in the form of a roof leak.2 (See NYSCEF No. 54.) The report reflects that a violation notice for this roof leak was issued in September 2009, well before the start of the lease in this action. (See id. at 1.) And plaintiff does not contest defendants’ position that this violation, if it exists and has not been corrected, would constitute a “rent-impairing violation” within the meaning of MDL §302-a. Defendants have thus made out a prima facie case with respect to this branch of their summary-judgment motion. In opposition, plaintiff asserts that the roof leak either was repaired in 2009 or did not exist. If plaintiff is correct, the fact that HPD’s records still list the violation as open would not bar plaintiff’s entitlement to rent/U&O. (See MDL §302-a [3] [b] [i]-[ii].) To support this assertion, plaintiff relies on the same violation report as do defendants. Plaintiff points to the report’s notation that the building owner provided a certification in December 2009 that the violation had been corrected. (See NYSCEF No. 72 at
