however, affords some potential support for DOB's position. The regulation requires a
CONH where mandated pursuant to N.Y.C. Admin. Code §28-107.1 et seq.
N.Y.C. Admin. Code §28-107.1 requires a CONH for, inter alia, an
"alteration" of an SRO building, an "alteration" being "any renovation to a building ."
N.Y.C. Admin. Code §28-101.5. Moreover, 28 R.C.NY §10-02(b)(2) states
that, with regard to SRO buildings, even if an application does not invoke a type of plan
requiring a CONH, a CONH may still be required pursuant to N.Y.C. Admin. Code
§ 28-107.1 et seq.
Be that as it may, Respondents' argument that 28 R.C.NY §10-02 did not
require a CONH for the PW1 application had merit, as 28 R.C.NY §10-02(b)(1)
specifies five kinds of plans that trigger the CONH requirement, none of which appear to
implicate the PW1 application. As meritorious as Respondents' argument may have
been, and even though Respondents' engineer successfully addressed DOB's other
objections to the PW1 application, no evidence in the record shows that Respondents
made their argument to DOB in between Respondents' engineer's meeting with a DOB
plan examiner on December 11, 2018 and the issuance of the Vacate Order on July 2,
2019. The potential competing interpretations of statutes [*17]and regulations between DOB and Respondents does not
excuse the absence of Respondents' effort for more than seven months to address the
CONH issue, much less Respondents' prior years of deferring maintenance.
Respondents assert that the subject premises was already in poor condition when
they obtained title in 2012. However, Respondents' subsequent neglect of the subject
premises from 2012 through 2019 diminishes any exculpatory value of the subject