DAVIS v. ODDO (2026)

.2025–07994

2025–07995

Benjamin Davis, appellant pro se.

Steven Banks, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for James S. Oddo and The New York City Department of Buildings, respondents.

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey H. Pearlman, J.), entered on or about December 7, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the cross-motion of respondents James S. Oddo, as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Buildings, and The New York City Department of Buildings (DOB, and together with respondent Oddo, the City respondents), to dismiss the petition seeking to annul a purported February 24, 2025 DOB determination declining to enforce Local Law 152 of 2016 against respondents Dalbert Daley and Gregory Daly, doing business as The DNV Manchester LLC, and Battersea Gardens Inc. (collectively, the landlord) and a writ of mandamus to compel enforcement of Local Law 152, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.  Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about December 7, 2025, which denied petitioner's motion for leave to conduct discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner, a tenant of a building owned by the landlord, alleged that the landlord never filed a gas piping periodic inspection certification (GPS2).  The GPS2, which under Local Law 152 was due by December 31, 2023, was required to verify that a licensed master plumber conducted a visual inspection of the gas lines in the building (see Administrative Code of City of N.Y. §§ 28–318.1 to 28–318.5;  1 RCNY 103–10[a][4][iv] ).

Supreme Court correctly dismissed the petition as refuted by documentary evidence (CPLR 3211[a][1];  Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 N.Y.2d 314, 326 [2002] ).  In their cross-motion to dismiss, the City respondents proffered the landlord's GPS2 on the DOB's official form, dated May 23, 2023, certifying that the inspection was conducted on that day.  The official DOB form is “unambiguous and of undisputed authenticity,” demonstrating the landlord's compliance with Local Law 152 (Koziatek v. SJB Dev. Inc., 172 AD3d 1486, 1486 [3d Dept 2019]] internal quotation marks omitted] ).  As a result, its decision not to issue a violation or otherwise enforce Local Law 152 against the landlord was neither arbitrary and capricious nor affected by an error of law (CPLR 7803[3];  see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. 0f Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 N.Y.2d 222, 231 [1974] ).  Moreover, a writ of mandamus was unwarranted, as the DOB did not “fail[ ] to perform a duty enjoined upon it by law” (CPLR 7803[1];  see Alliance to End Chickens as Kaporos v New York City Police Dept., 32 NY3d 1091, 1093 [2018] ).

Supreme Court also providently exercised its discretion in denying petitioner's motion for leave to seek disclosure of the metadata in the filed GPS2 (see CPLR 408).  Petitioner failed to show “unusual circumstances” or “ample need” for the disclosing the metadata (Matter of People v Northern Leasing Sys., Inc., 193 AD3d 67, 74 [1st Dept 2021], lv dismissed 37 NY3d 1088 [2021] [internal quotation marks omitted] ), as the documents submitted with the petition and cross-motion to dismiss were sufficient to determine the relevant issue (see Matter of Kai Ming Chen v. City of New York, 236 AD3d 583, 584 [1st Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 911 [2026] ).

We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.