No issue of fact exists as to whether the transformers are large structures effectively made part of the building as an integral part of its electrical system, and were intended as such (see, East Side Car Wash v K.R.K. Capitol, 102 A.D.2d 157). As there was no agreement to the contrary, these fixtures were clearly conveyed with the building upon its transfer to plaintiff (see, Mott v Palmer, 1 N.Y. 564, 569), and are therefore plaintiff's responsibility.
There is no merit to plaintiff's contention that defendants MTA and Metro-North are responsible for replacing the transformers, since under the Hudson-Harlem Lease, to which the building deed was made subject, they are not required to make capital expenditures. Moreover, even if they assumed the cost for the replacement of the transformers, they could recover such from plaintiff under the building deed.
Nor is there merit to plaintiff's claim that only defendant Penn Central, and not defendants MTA and Metro-North, had the contractual right to terminate its utility service. Together, the Hudson-Harlem Lease and building deed clearly allow defendants MTA and Metro-North to terminate utility service to plaintiff upon one year's notice. Indeed, upon the assignment from defendant Penn Central to defendants MTA and Metro-North, the latter received all of the former's rights with respect to the provision of utility service to plaintiff (see, Citibank v Tele/Resources, Inc., 724 F.2d 266, 269).
We have considered all other claims and find them to be of no merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.