The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297,298,299, 300, 301,302,303, 304 were read on this motion to/for PREL INJUNCTION/TEMP REST ORDR. DECISION ORDER ON MOTION Upon the foregoing documents, plaintiffs move for, inter alia, a preliminary injunction to temporarily remove the existing telecommunications equipment from the roof of the building located at 723 Eleventh Avenue in the County, City and State of New York and an order directing defendant to approve reinstallation plans. Defendant cross moves for an order, inter alia, vacating this Court’s temporary restraining order (TRO) as set forth in the order to show cause dated August 31. 2021 (NYSCEF Doc No 24) and granting declaratory judgment on its first counterclaim. Preliminary Injunction & Disputed Proposed Orders During oral argument on March 16, 2022, the parties agreed that immediate steps needed to be taken to remove plaintiff T-Mobile’s equipment or facility from the roof in order to repair the roof and ameliorate dangers or hazards that the current condition of the roof presents to the building, its tenants, and the public. The parties were directed to submit proposed orders, and the Court was to issue its order by amending the plaintiffs’ proposed order, as it clearly delineates each step of the process, with details as to the scope of work and noting where various approvals may be needed. Defendants’ objections to plaintiffs’ proposed order (NYSCEF Doc No 300) and plaintiffs’ response to the same (NYSCEF Doc No 302) are addressed and resolved as follows: 1. Alleged False Statements in Plaintiffs’ Exhibits Defendant contends that “all self-serving and inaccurate statements should be removed from Plaintiffs exhibits” and that defendant as owner “cannot sign off on false statements to the DOB” (NYSCEF Doc No 300). However, no one is asking the owner to sign off on any false statements to the DOB. The referenced exhibit unequivocally states that Azimuth Engineering assumes that T-Mobile’s statements were accurate in preparing the document. Therefore, this has nothing to do with anything that defendant has to supply to the DOB. 2. Bifurcating Removal Process The Court cannot discern why defendant objected to plaintiffs’ order on this basis, as defendant’s own proposed order also separates the removal work to two phases because repairs and asbestos abatement is needed before removing the north dunnage beam. Specifically, the defendant’s proposed order directs removal of the Facility “except for the North dunnage beam” within 30 days; then an asbestos abatement; followed by removal of the north dunnage beam (NYSCEF Doc No 291 at
