Opinion
June 3, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (William McCooe, J.).
Respondent's finding that certain work done to the subject apartment, claimed by petitioner to constitute "improvements" within the meaning of Rent Stabilization Code (9 N.Y.CRR) § 2522.4 justifying a rent increase, amounted only to normal maintenance and repair necessarily entailed respondent's expertise in evaluating the documentation and other factual data before it concerning this work, and is entitled to deference if not irrational or unreasonable ( see, Matter of Ansonia Residents Assn. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 75 N.Y.2d 206, 213), which it is not. The record, which, among other factors, shows that most of the disallowed work was for painting, skim coating, partial floor replacement and partial rewiring, also supports respondent's finding that petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of willfulness, justifying the award of treble damages ( see, Matter of 985 Fifth Ave. v. State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 171 A.D.2d 572, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 861). We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Wallach, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.