Buildings Aren't Horizontal Multiple Dwelling

LVT Number: 17966

(Decision submitted by Dan Roskoff of the Williston Park law firm of Horing Welikson & Rosen, PC, attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord asked the DRA to rule on whether various buildings were a horizontal multiple dwelling (HMD) and so subject to rent stabilization. The DRA ruled that the buildings were a horizontal multiple dwelling. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord then challenged the DHCR's ruling in court, claiming that it was unreasonable. The DHCR agreed to take the case back and reconsider. Upon reconsideration, the DRA ruled that the buildings weren't a HMD.

(Decision submitted by Dan Roskoff of the Williston Park law firm of Horing Welikson & Rosen, PC, attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord asked the DRA to rule on whether various buildings were a horizontal multiple dwelling (HMD) and so subject to rent stabilization. The DRA ruled that the buildings were a horizontal multiple dwelling. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord then challenged the DHCR's ruling in court, claiming that it was unreasonable. The DHCR agreed to take the case back and reconsider. Upon reconsideration, the DRA ruled that the buildings weren't a HMD. The water main, sewer pipes, electric, and gas connections were all separate at all times since the buildings were constructed; there was a separate central heating system for each building; and each building had a separate basement with party walls separating them. These factors outweighed the fact that the buildings were owned and operated by the same landlord, had shared front facades, chimney, roof space, one block and lot number, and one deed.

Ridge Development Inc.: DRA Dckt. No. PE130005RP (12/23/04) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

PE130005RP.pdf122.99 KB