| Matter of Graham Ct. Owners Corp. v Division of Hous. & CommunityRenewal |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 02023 [71 AD3d 515] |
| March 16, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Graham Court Owners Corp.,Appellant, v Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Respondent, and KyleTaylor, Intervenor-Respondent. |
—[*1] Gary R. Connor, New York (Patrice Huss of counsel), for respondent. Bierman & Palitz LLP, New York (Mark H. Bierman of counsel), forintervenor-respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), entered November 24,2008, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal's (DHCR) determination of rentovercharge was properly upheld based on its rejection of petitioner owner's documentation forthe claimed improvements (see Matter of Mayfair York Co. v New York State Div. of Hous.& Community Renewal, 240 AD2d 158 [1997]), some of which, such as painting, plasteringand floor maintenance, did not in any event constitute improvements (see id.), and theowner's resulting failure to carry its burden of establishing entitlement to a major capitalimprovement increase (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2522.4 [a] [1];Matter of 985 Fifth Ave. v State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 171 AD2d 572,574-575 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 861 [1991]). DHCR's discrediting of the owner'sdocumentation for some of the claimed improvements permissibly tainted its view of others(see Matter of Lucot, Inc. v Gabel, 20 AD2d 94, 97 [1963], affd 15 NY2d 774[1965]).
Treble damages were properly imposed because the owner failed to establish that itsovercharges were not willful (seeMatter of 425 3rd Ave. Realty Co. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,29 AD3d 332, 333 [2006]).[*2]
We have considered the owner's other contentions andfind them unavailing. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Catterson, McGuire, Acosta and Renwick,JJ.