Case ID: ad3d_139/html/0414-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Marsha Pels, Petitioner, v New York City Environmental Control Board et al., Respondents.
    [29 NYS3d 164]
   Determination of respondent New York City Environmental Control Board (ECB), dated December 19, 2013, which reinstated a violation against petitioner for obstructing the sprinkler system in her loft unit in violation of the New York City Fire Code, and assessed a mitigated $475 fine, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Shlomo Hagler, J.], entered on or about Oct. 6, 2014), dismissed, without costs.

ECB’s finding that petitioner erected a free-standing structure with a temporary ceiling that obstructed the sprinkler system in violation of the Fire Code is supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]).

Article 7-C of the Multiple Dwelling Law (Loft Law) does not preempt enforcement of the Fire Code violation under the circumstances presented (see DJL Rest. Corp. v City of New York, 96 NY2d 91, 95 [2001]). An analysis of the Loft Law and its legislative findings reveals that the New York State Legislature did not “clearly evince! ] a desire to preempt an entire field thereby precluding any further local regulation” such that implied preemption would apply (Jancyn Mfg. Corp. v County of Suffolk, 71 NY2d 91, 97 [1987]). Furthermore, petitioner’s express preemption arguments fail, as no section of the Loft Law expressly prohibits enforcement of fire safety regulations against tenants who affirmatively create new fire hazards.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, Richter, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.