Carriage House Not Part of Horizontal Multiple Dwelling

LVT Number: 12631

Facts: Tenants applied to the DHCR for a ruling that two small buildings together contained six apartments and so were subject to rent stabilization. The two buildings were connected by a courtyard. One contained five apartments, and the other originally had been a carriage house. Tenants claimed that the two buildings had been owned, managed, and operated as one unit since the 1800s, were located on one block and lot, and were taxed as one unit. The two buildings were registered as one multiple dwelling with HPD.

Facts: Tenants applied to the DHCR for a ruling that two small buildings together contained six apartments and so were subject to rent stabilization. The two buildings were connected by a courtyard. One contained five apartments, and the other originally had been a carriage house. Tenants claimed that the two buildings had been owned, managed, and operated as one unit since the 1800s, were located on one block and lot, and were taxed as one unit. The two buildings were registered as one multiple dwelling with HPD. However, the DHCR inspection showed that the buildings had separate heating systems, water mains, sewer pipes, gas connections, roofs, entrances, mailboxes, and electrical connections. The carriage house also had no basement, while the other building did. The DHCR ruled against tenants, and they appealed. Court: Tenants lose. Although the buildings had common ownership and management, they didn't have enough common facilities to constitute a horizontal multiple dwelling. So the DHCR's decision that the buildings weren't rent-stabilized was reasonable.

Ross v. DHCR: NYLJ, p. 22, col. 1 (8/26/98) (Sup. Ct. NY; Tolub, J)