[brief] From the inception of the hardship application, where it claimed an equity based on its own made up calculation based on a hypothetical appraisal in which the Tenant has been hypothetically displaced, [...] has consistently been a significant contributing factor to the issues that arose as this matter meandered its way through the courts and Rent Leveling Board.  For example, the basis for [...]’s remand after the first set of hearings was caused in large part by the Board’s confusion over [...]’s protected tenant status.  It is therefore notable that [...]’s counsel was responsible for much of this confusion.  [...]’s attorney wrongly advised the Board as to the protections conferred by the Tenant Protection Act, seemingly tried to hide from the Board that [...] was a protected tenant, and implied that a Board Member may have done something unethical by even *knowing* the [...] was a protected tenant.  This exchange took place between [...]’s counsel and a Board Member at the very first hearing:  Board Member: “The piece that I don’t understand, and I admit that I don’t understand, is that this gentleman is a protected tenant.  Am I correct?”  Someone: “Yes. ”  [...]: “How do we know that?  It’s not in the record. ”  Board Member: “I don’t know that. ”  [...]  “Then why did you say…How did you happen to say that?  Know that?  Board Member: “Because I saw the phrase or read the phrase some place in this-  [...]: “It’s not in there.  There’s nothing in there about being a protected tenant, ma’am. ”  Board Member: “I have-“  [...]: “Unless somebody spoke to you outside of the hearing. ”  Board member: “No. ”  1T98:24-99:5.  If [...]’s attorney had not acted in this manner, the Board may have considered these factors in its initial consideration of the matter, as [...]’s counsel requested, and it would not have had to be remanded the first time.  On appeal, [...] has tempered its demands and attempts to rewrite the past five years.  On page 27 of its brief, [...] represents:  [...] did not seek to calculate its equity applying Hoboken’s equalization ratio of 74.18% to the Unit’s assessed value…nor did [...] seek to apply the appraised value of the Unit at $622,500. ”  However, in reality, Ammacon did exactly this for five years.  The Board’s confusion is directly due to [...]’s lobbying for the Board to deviate from its ordinance, particularly in calculating equity.  [...] advocated for the Board to take value into account at every single hearing in this matter in every proposed equity calculation it put before the Board.  As late as 2020, the landlord was still introducing new (to the Board) appraisals to make new arguments about value.  7T:40 (introducing a 2001 pre-conversion appraisal of the building for the first time).  [...] should not be rewarded for this lobbying of a government agency to violate the ordinance by which it is bound with a retroactive increase.  Nor should the Tenant be punished as he has been dragged through nearly 50 hours of hearings, many of which were dominated by the landlord seeking to confuse a local municipal board about its own ordinance so that he could be displaced and [...] could escape the downside of its business decision.