Summary
In Cenpark, the First Department upheld the trial court's denial of the owner's application to annul DHCR's determination that work was not performed building-wide.
Summary of this case from Tenants Comm. of 36 Gramercy Park v. New York State Div. of Hous.Opinion
January 28, 1999.
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (William McCooe, J.).
Respondent's finding that the work in question was not done on a building-wide basis and did not inure to the benefit of all tenants, as required by Rent Stabilization Code (9 N.Y.CRR) § 2522.4 (a) (2) (i) (c) in order to qualify as a major capital improvement, has ample support in the record, including tenant complaints of continuing leaks and water damage, the contractor's statement that it worked on only a portion of the building, and the fact that additional pointing work was subsequently performed ( see, Matter of Garden Bay Manor Assocs. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 150 A.D.2d 378).
Concur — Williams, J.P., Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.