Landlord Didn't Prove Building Was Substantially Rehabbed

Landlord asked the DHCR to determine that its building was exempt from rent regulation based on a substantial rehabilitation that took place between 2002 and 2007. The DRA ruled against landlord, who appealed and lost. Landlord didn't prove that it replaced at least 75 percent of building and apartment systems. Landlord failed to prove that all ceilings, flooring, and wall surfaces in common areas were replaced or that ceilings, wall, and floor surfaces in apartments were replaced or made new. DHCR inspection showed that floor tiles in public hallways were 10-15 years old, public hallway ceilings and walls throughout the building were old plaster with cracks, patches, and buckled areas. In individual apartments, the inspector also found instances of an old rusted split metal ceiling, old plaster walls, patched or rotted hardwood flooring, and water-damaged walls and ceilings. Landlord's construction records also didn't indicate that substantial rehab work was done to these areas. And a Tenant Safety Plan landlord filed with DOB limits the scope of construction to individual apartments and stated that there would be no disruption of ingress/egress or other essential building services. 

245 Martense LLC: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. FV210015RO (5/31/18) [7-pg. doc.]