Opinion
570033/04.
Decided March 2, 2006.
Landlord appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court, New York County (Jean T. Schneider, J.), entered December 19, 2003, after a nonjury trial, which awarded tenants possession and a money judgment in the sum of $37,182.79 in a nonpayment summary proceeding.
Final judgment (Jean T. Schneider, J.), entered December 19, 2003, affirmed, with $25 costs.
PRESENT: Suarez, P.J., McCooe, Schoenfeld, JJ
We agree that landlord failed to establish the existence of apartment improvements justifying the rent increase sought under Rent Stabilization Code [ 9 NYCRR] § 2522.4[a][1] ( see Matter of Sohn v DHCR, 258 AD2d 384; Matter of Birdoff Co. v. DHCR, 204 AD2d 630). The trial court properly found that landlord failed to submit adequate documentation in support of its claimed improvements in accordance with DHCR Policy Statement 90-10. Nor did landlord produce any witness affiliated with the contractor or otherwise demonstrate the nature and scope of the work performed ( PWV Acquisition v. Toscano, 2005 NY Slip Op 51870[U]; compare 30 W. 70th St. Corp. v. Sylvor, NYLJ, March 12, 1999, at 26, col 1 [App Term, lst Dept.). Furthermore, a number of items reflect normal maintenance and repair for which an increase is not authorized ( see Matter of Linden v. DHCR, 217 AD2d 407). Finally, treble damages were properly imposed, since landlord failed to establish that its overcharge was not willful.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.