Opinion
570891/03.
Decided January 27, 2006.
Landlords appeal from a final judgment of the Civil Court, New York County (Ernest J. Cavallo, J.), entered on or about September 30, 2002, after a nonjury trial, which dismissed the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.
Final judgment (Ernest J. Cavallo, J.), entered on or about September 30, 2002, affirmed, with $25 costs.
PRESENT: Suarez, P.J., Davis, Schoenfeld, JJ
The holdover proceeding, founded largely upon a nuisance theory unsupported by the record and abandoned by appellant landlord on appeal, was properly dismissed after trial. To the extent that landlord's possessory claim was based upon allegations that tenants' residential use of the basement area of the demised duplex apartment violated the certificate of occupancy, the trial court's rejection of that claim comports with the voluminous trial evidence. Even assuming the existence of a violation, landlord failed to make the requisite showing that the certificate of occupancy is incapable of amendment ( see Dinico v. Groff Studios Corp., 257 AD2d 218, 223) or that such an amendment would be unduly burdensome ( see Matter of K G Co. v. Reyes, 52 Misc 2d 606).
The landlord's disagreement with certain dicta in the court's decision and order concerning inspection access does not furnish a basis to take an appeal ( Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co. v. Austin Powder Co., 68 NY2d 465, 472-473). We note, however, that where an owner or its agent seeks access to make improvements or non-emergency repairs, a tenant need only be given one week's advance notice ( see 28 RCNY 25-101).
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.