Consider the following table.

Table:
| name                   | street address                     | years as tallest   | of years as tallest   | height m / ft   |   floors |
|:-----------------------|:-----------------------------------|:-------------------|:----------------------|:----------------|---------:|
| notre dame basilica    | 110 notre - dame street west       | 1829 - 1928        | 99 years              | 69 / 226        |        7 |
| royal bank building    | 360 saint jacques street west      | 1928 - 1931        | 3 years               | 121 / 397       |       22 |
| sun life building      | 1155 metcalfe street               | 1931 - 1962        | 31 years              | 122 / 400       |       26 |
| tour cibc              | 1155 rené lévesque boulevard west  | 1962               | <1 year               | 187 / 614       |       45 |
| place ville marie      | 1 place ville - marie              | 1962 - 1964        | 2 years               | 188 / 617       |       47 |
| tour de la bourse      | 800 victoria square                | 1964 - 1992        | 28 years              | 194 / 637       |       47 |
| 1000 de la gauchetière | 1000 de la gauchetière street west | 1992 - present     | 21 years (current)    | 205 / 673       |       51 |

Table Caption: list of tallest buildings in montreal

Is the following statement entailed (=1) or refuted (=0) by the table?

Statement: the sun life building remain the tallest building in montreal for close to a third of the time of the notre dame basilica

Answer: 1