Opinion
June 20, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed on the law, with costs, the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.
Contrary to the finding of the Supreme Court, the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal reasonably determined that the backflow device which the petitioner was required by law to install did not constitute a major capital improvement under the Emergency Tenant Protection Act or the Tenant Protection Regulations (see, Matter of 126 Franklin Ave. Assocs. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 203 A.D.2d 464; McKinney's Uncons Laws of N.Y. § 8626 [d] [3]; 9 NYCRR 2502.4 [a] [2] [iii]; see also, Operational Bulletin No. 84-4; Rasch, New York Landlord and Tenant — Rent Control and Rent Stabilization, at 547 [2d ed 1987]). Accordingly, the determination must be upheld (see, Matter of Ansonia Residents Assn. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 75 N.Y.2d 206, 213-214; Kurcsics v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 49 N.Y.2d 451, 459; see also, Matter of Edward Stephen, Inc. v McGoldrick, 1 N.Y.2d 899, 900-901; Matter of Heissenbuttal, 286 App. Div. 646, 652). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.