Landlord appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court, New York County (Jean T. Schneider, J.), entered December 19, 2003, after a nonjury trial, which awarded tenants possession and a money judgment in the sum of $37,182.79 in a nonpayment summary proceeding.

PER CURIAM:

Final judgment (Jean T. Schneider, J.), entered December 19, 2003, affirmed, with $25 costs.

We agree that landlord failed to establish the
existence of apartment improvements justifying the rent
increase sought under Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2522.4[a][1](see Matter of Sohn v DHCR, 258 AD2d 384 [1999]; Matter of Birdoff & Co. v DHCR, 204 AD2d 630 [1994]). The trial court properly found that landlord failed to submit adequate documentation in support of its claimed improvements in accordance with DHCR Policy Statement 90-10. Nor did landlord produce any witness affiliated with the contractor or otherwise demonstrate the nature and scope of the work performed (PWV Acquisition v Toscano, 2005 NY Slip Op 51870[U]; compare 30 W. 70th St. Corp. v Sylvor, NYLJ, March 12, 1999, at 26, col 1 [App Term, lst Dept.). Furthermore, a number of items reflect normal maintenance and repair for which an increase is not authorized (see Matter of Linden v DHCR, 217 AD2d 407 [1995]). Finally, treble damages were properly imposed, since landlord failed to establish that its overcharge was not willful.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court. [*2]
Decision Date: March 2, 2006