PER CURIAM.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Order (Maria Milin, J.), dated April 16, 2015, reversed, with $10 costs, and landlord's motion for leave to conduct discovery is granted.
Landlord established “ample need” (New York Univ. v. Farkas, 121 Misc.2d 643, 647 [1983] ) to inspect and photograph the alleged unauthorized alterations and renovations performed by tenants in the rent controlled apartment premises (see CPLR 408; Gazivoda v. Sherman, 29 AD3d 458 [2006]; see also CPLR 3120[1][ii]; Iskowitz v. Forkosh Constr. Co., 269 A.D.2d 131 [2000] ). Landlord set forth sufficient facts to establish that it has a cause of action, the nature and extent of the renovations is the central issue to be litigated in this case, the information sought to be discovered is exclusively within tenants' access and control, and no prejudice will befall tenants since it is landlord's own case which will be delayed, if at all, by the disclosure (see Hartsdale Realty Co. v. Santos, 170 A.D.2d 260 [1991] ). In view of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur.