Skip to main content

2018 NY Slip Op 51958

Citation
2018 NY Slip Op 51958
Jurisdiction
New York (state)
Source verification
cross_accepted_sealed

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,791 chars
been provided, were needed going forward, Spitzer set forth his preliminary analysis of that
which had been provided.

As part of the renovation, Dogwood LLC intended to remove part of the structure which
extended above the roof line to create a larger deck area, which would permit the addition of a
rooftop lap pool, and to replace the remaining A-frame rooftop structure with one of increased
width and height, which new structure Dogwood LLC's architect characterized as having two
interior mezzanine levels. Spitzer recommended against the addition of a rooftop pool because, if
it leaked or broke, it could cause "considerable" damage not only to the Apartment, but to the
units below it. As for the removal of the old rooftop structure and replacement with a new
multi-level one, Spitzer, giving detailed reasons, advised that the old rooftop structure, which had
been built higher than zoning currently allowed, was grandfathered in, but that the proposed
structure was higher than the old structure and the height currently permitted. Additionally,
Spitzer opined that the proposed structure actually constituted two floors which, he claimed,
would render the building a six-story structure, thus requiring the addition of a large
building-wide elevator, as [*7]opposed to the Apartment's private
elevator. Further, Spitzer asserted, citing specified code sections, that Dogwood LLC's proposed
addition of a new small private elevator for the fourth floor through to the two new proposed
rooftop levels was too small and failed to conform to the current code. Spitzer also averred that,
as a six-story structure, the building would become subject to the provisions of Local Law
11.[FN6]

After receipt of Spitzer's letter, Stable's counsel, Tracy Peterson (Peterson), wrote Dogwood