Goldstone affirms that the repairs proposed by defendant would reduce the interior living space of her unit by six inches in every room of the apartment, including the bathrooms, requiring the moving of radiators and other fixtures. These changes, Goldstone maintains, are discriminatory, since no other apartment in the building has had the type of construction proposed used to deal with exterior leaks and no other apartment has insulation in the walls as proposed by defendant to deal with the leaks.
In its cross-motion, defendant avers that plaintiffs are not entitled to have the unit repaired to its pre-flood condition, and that defendant is entitled to use its business judgment to unilaterally repair the premises. As such, defendant states that it is entitled to a declaratory judgment to the effect that it may repair the unit as it sees fit in the exercise of its business judgment.
With respect to plaintiffs' fourteenth and fifteenth causes of action sounding in libel, defendant maintains that the complaint is deficient in its allegations.
Newman has admitted that the date appearing in the fourteenth cause of action is incorrect. Further, the complaint fails to indicate any third person, other than defendant's own agents, to whom such alleged libelous documents were published and, in his deposition, Newman testified that he was unaware of any such persons.