Zingman & Associates PLLC, New York (Mitchell S. Zingman of counsel), for appellant.

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., New York (Michael A. Pensabene of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James E. d'Auguste, J.), entered on or about September 30, 2021, which granted defendant landlord's motion to dismiss plaintiff tenant's second, sixth, and seventh causes of action, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the motion as to the sixth cause of action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered June 11, 2020, which denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

The complaint fails to state a cause of action for a permanent injunction requiring defendant to provide plaintiff either with a key enabling it to gain access to the building's elevator from the street or a key to the building's Greene Street entrance (see Elow v Svenningsen, 58 AD3d 674, 675 [2d Dept 2009]). The allegations concerning the terms of the lease and the historic custom and practice at the building with respect to elevator and door access do not establish that there has been a violation of plaintiff's rights, whether based on an express lease term or as an implied term based on the creation of an appurtenance to the lease.

However, the complaint states a cause of action for a permanent injunction requiring defendant to reconnect the auxiliary heat blower or to replace it with a comparable electrical unit. It cannot be concluded as a matter of law from the record or otherwise that this auxiliary heating unit, which provided supplemental heat to the premises for many years, is an inessential item, rather than an appurtenance to the lease necessary to plaintiff's beneficial use of the premises (see Second on Second Café, Inc. v Hing Sing Trading, Inc., 66 AD3d 255 [1st Dept 2009]). Concur—Webber, J.P., Kern, Moulton, González, Mendez, JJ.