West v 332 E. 84th Owners Corp.

West v 332 E. 84th Owners Corp. 2009 NY Slip Op 09152 [68 AD3d 499] December 10, 2009 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Kevin West et al., Appellants,
v
332 East 84th Owners Corp., Respondent.

—[*1] Stern & Zingman LLP, New York (Mitchell S. Zingman of counsel), for appellants.

Rosen Livingston & Cholst LLP, New York (Bruce A. Cholst of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered February 20, 2009, which, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record raises no issues of fact whether the board's reason for denying plaintiffs' request to construct a new bathroom in their apartment, i.e., that it would violate a recently enacted building policy to prohibit "wet" construction over "dry" space, was legitimately related to the welfare of the cooperative and therefore a reasonable basis for withholding consent (see Seven Park Ave. Corp. v Green, 277 AD2d 123 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 853 [2001]; Rosenthal v One Hudson Park, 269 AD2d 144 [2000]). Plaintiffs submitted no evidence that the space below the proposed bathroom was not "dry" or that the policy prohibiting "wet-over-dry" construction was unreasonable or applied in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, McGuire, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.