Opinion
November 4, 1999
Jeffrey R. Metz for Petitioner-Appellant.
Maddy Tarnofsky for Intervenors-Respondents.
ELLERIN, P.J., WILLIAMS, WALLACH, BUCKLEY, FRIEDMAN, JJ.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered December 21, 1998, which denied petitioner landlord's application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal's (DHCR's) determination that the apartment in question was subject to rent stabilization, and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The IAS court properly declined to disturb DHCR's determination that the apartment in question remained subject to rent stabilization, since the improvements made to the apartment, and the subsequent allowable rent increase, pursuant to9 NYCRR § 2522.4, did not bring the legal regulated rent to an amount exceeding $2,000. In this connection, DHCR's determination to disallow costs attributed to plumbing work was rationally based since petitioner failed to submit sufficient documentation specifying the work performed and its cost (see, 985 Fifth Ave., Inc. v. State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 171 A.D.2d 572, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 861; see also, Pechock v. State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 253 A.D.2d 655).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.