Opinion
August 19, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
There is no merit to the defendant Falack's contention that the City's motion for summary judgment should have been denied. The record clearly establishes that Falack purchased a home that had been structurally altered in such a manner that it was not in compliance with several provisions of the City zoning ordinance. The record further establishes that Falack was aware of the prior owner's unsuccessful attempts to obtain the necessary variances which would have excused the violations currently at issue. Accordingly, as Falack's house is undeniably in violation of the zoning ordinance, and as his claims of discriminatory selective enforcement were not properly raised and moreover are unsubstantiated by the record (see, Matter of 303 W. 42nd Corp. v Klein, 46 N.Y.2d 686), the Supreme Court properly enjoined the further use of the illegal additions and directed their removal (see, Town of E. Hampton v Buffa, 157 A.D.2d 714; City of New York v Bilynn Realty Corp., 118 A.D.2d 511; Administrative Code § 7-701 et seq.).
Nevertheless, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to assess a civil penalty against the defendant Falack (see, Administrative Code §§ 7-706, 26-120, 26-125). Eiber, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.