Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Maria Milin, J.), dated April 16, 2015, which denied its motion for leave to conduct discovery in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Maria Milin, J.), dated April 16, 2015, reversed, with $10 costs, and landlord's motion for leave to conduct discovery is granted.

Landlord established "ample need" (New York Univ. v Farkas, 121 Misc 2d 643, 647 [1983]) to inspect and photograph the alleged unauthorized alterations and renovations performed by tenants in the rent controlled apartment premises (see CPLR 408; Gazivoda v Sherman, 29 AD3d 458 [2006]; see also CPLR 3120[1][ii]; Iskowitz v Forkosh Constr. Co., 269 AD2d 131 [2000]). Landlord set forth sufficient facts to establish that it has a cause of action, the nature and extent of the renovations is the central issue to be litigated in this case, the information sought to be discovered is exclusively within tenants' access and control, and no prejudice will befall tenants since it is landlord's own case which will be delayed, if at all, by the disclosure (see Hartsdale Realty Co. v Santos, 170 AD2d 260 [1991]). In view of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.