Opinion
July 29, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feinberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The buildings involved in this proceeding are located in an area in Brooklyn designated as the "Special Northside Mixed Use District". The regulations governing this district distinguish between buildings "designed for residential use" and those designed for nonresidential use (see, New York City Zoning Resolution § 97-01 et seq.). A building "designed for residential use" is defined as "a building, which was originally designed for residential use and in which at least 25 percent of the floor area is occupied for residential use" (New York City Zoning Resolution § 12-10). Because the buildings at issue were no longer actually occupied for residential use, the Supreme Court properly determined that they were not buildings "designed for residential use" within the meaning of the New York City Zoning Resolution.
The Supreme Court also properly determined that the construction at issue constituted an "alteration" rather than a "demolition" or the construction of a "new building" in a "development" (see, New York City Zoning Resolution § 12-10; Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 27-232; see also, Matter of Action Elec. Contrs. Co. v. Goldin, 64 N.Y.2d 213, 221; Kurcsics v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 49 N.Y.2d 451, 459; see also, Appelbaum v. Deutsch, 66 N.Y.2d 975, 977). Bracken, J.P., Miller, Copertino and Krausman, JJ., concur.