Supreme Court noted that four years had elapsed since plaintiff was ordered to remove the items from the roof, and she complied with the order, but defendant had failed to repair the roof. Supreme Court properly concluded that defendant's failure to maintain the roof deprived plaintiff of its use, in violation of the offering plan and proprietary lease ( see Dinicu v Groff Studios Corp., 257 AD2d 218, 224; Washburn v 166 E. 96th St. Owners Corp., 166 AD2d 272), warranting injunctive relief directing repairs necessary to render the roof amenable to plaintiffs right of use under the offering plan and proprietary lease, subject to reasonable regulation by defendant ( see Benedict v International Banking Corp., 88 App Div 488). In that section 7 of the proprietary lease grants plaintiff "the exclusive use of . . . that portion of the roof appurtenant to the penthouse," the injunction does no more than enforce plaintiffs contractual rights, consistent with the court's ruling on the first two causes of action.