Landlord Didn't Show Building Was Substandard Before Rehabilitation
LVT Number: 9474
Landlord sued to evict tenant for nonpayment of rent. Landlord claimed the building was exempt from rent stabilization because it had been substantially rehabilitated. The court dismissed the case, and landlord appealed. Landlord argued that it had spent over $275,000 to renovate the building by removing a store and reconfiguring all the apartments. Landlord loses. The lower court properly ruled that landlord wasn't exempt from rent stabilization based on a substantial renovation. That exemption only applies if substandard housing is restored to good condition. It doesn't apply when decent housing is improved. Landlord didn't show condition of the building before starting the rehabilitation.
81 Russell Street Associates v. Scott: NYLJ, p. 35, col. 6 (1/13/95) (App. T. 2 Dept.; Kassoff, JP, Chetta, Patterson, JJ)