Respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal's (DHCR) determination of rent overcharge was properly upheld based on its rejection of petitioner owner's documentation for the claimed improvements ( see Matter of May fair York Co. v New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 240 AD2d 158), some of which, such as painting, plastering and floor maintenance, did not in any event constitute improvements ( see id.), and the owner's resulting failure to carry its burden of establishing entitlement to a major capital improvement increase ( see Rent Stabilization Code [ 9 NYCRR] § 2522.4 [a] [1]; Matter of 985 Fifth Ave. v State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 171 AD2d 572, 574-575, lv denied 78 NY2d 861). DHCR's discrediting of the owner's documentation for some of the claimed improvements permissibly tainted its view of others ( see Matter of Lucot, Inc. v Gabel, 20 AD2d 94, 97, affd 15 NY2d 774).
Treble damages were properly imposed because the owner failed to establish that its overcharges were not willful ( see Matter of 425 3rd Ave. Realty Co. v New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 29 AD3d 332, 333).
We have considered the owner's other contentions and find them unavailing.