Court of Appeals of New York.
MORGAN AND BROTHER MANHATTAN STORAGE COMPANY, INC., Appellant,
v.
Herbert M. BALIN et al., as copartners, practicing law under the name of
Wydler, Balin, Pares & Soloway, et al., Respondents.
June 2, 1976.
 *850 ***100 **748 Owen McGivern, Lawrence P. McGauley, Ronald S. Herzog, John 
E. Schmeltzer, III, Robert L. Magielnicki and John W. Wall, New York, for 
appellant.
 Francis Bergan, Albany, Harry Reiss, Brooklyn, Samuel Kirschenbaum, New York 
City, and Richard H. Abelson, for respondents.
 MEMORANDUM.
 The order of the Appellate Division, 47 A.D.2d 85, 364 N.Y.S.2d 904 is affirmed 
on the opinion of Myles J. Lane, J., of that court. We take this occasion to add 
one observation. In this instance the applicant was categorically advised by the 
Deputy Borough Superintendent of Buildings that no amendment of the certificate 
f occupancy was possible. In some situations it might be urged that on receipt 
of such advice the prospective purchaser should be relieved of all further 
obligation to pursue attempts to obtain an amendment. Such a contention is less 
supportable here, however, since arguably the applicant's engineers should have 
known that the superintendent's information was erroneous, and applicant never 
pressed its request for relief.
 BREITEL, C.J., and JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, *851 FUCHSBERG and COOKE, JJ., 
concur.
 WACHTLER, J., taking no part.
 Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Question certified answered in the 
affirmative.
386 N.Y.S.2d 100 (Mem), 39 N.Y.2d 848, 351 N.E.2d 748
END OF DOCUMENT
Court of Appeals of New York.
MORGAN AND BROTHER MANHATTAN STORAGE COMPANY, INC., Appellant,v.Herbert M. BALIN et al., as copartners, practicing law under the name ofWydler, Balin, Pares & Soloway, et al., Respondents.

June 2, 1976.
 *850 ***100 **748 Owen McGivern, Lawrence P. McGauley, Ronald S. Herzog, John E. Schmeltzer, III, Robert L. Magielnicki and John W. Wall, New York, for appellant.
 Francis Bergan, Albany, Harry Reiss, Brooklyn, Samuel Kirschenbaum, New York City, and Richard H. Abelson, for respondents.

 MEMORANDUM.
 The order of the Appellate Division, 47 A.D.2d 85, 364 N.Y.S.2d 904 is affirmed on the opinion of Myles J. Lane, J., of that court. We take this occasion to add one observation. In this instance the applicant was categorically advised by the Deputy Borough Superintendent of Buildings that no amendment of the certificate f occupancy was possible. In some situations it might be urged that on receipt of such advice the prospective purchaser should be relieved of all further obligation to pursue attempts to obtain an amendment. Such a contention is less supportable here, however, since arguably the applicant's engineers should have known that the superintendent's information was erroneous, and applicant never pressed its request for relief.

 BREITEL, C.J., and JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, *851 FUCHSBERG and COOKE, JJ., concur.

 WACHTLER, J., taking no part.
 Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Question certified answered in the affirmative.
386 N.Y.S.2d 100 (Mem), 39 N.Y.2d 848, 351 N.E.2d 748
END OF DOCUMENT