Landlord Didn't Substantially Rehab Horizontal Multiple Dwelling

LVT Number: 16612

Landlord applied for a ruling that its two buildings were exempt from rent stabilization based on substantial rehabilitation completed in 1998. The DRA ruled for landlord and found that the two buildings that had been a horizontal multiple dwelling had been converted into separate buildings. Tenant appealed, arguing that the number of apartments was reduced from 13 to eight and that her four-unit building wasn't legally split from the other building. The DHCR ruled for tenant. The two buildings were a horizontal multiple dwelling.

Landlord applied for a ruling that its two buildings were exempt from rent stabilization based on substantial rehabilitation completed in 1998. The DRA ruled for landlord and found that the two buildings that had been a horizontal multiple dwelling had been converted into separate buildings. Tenant appealed, arguing that the number of apartments was reduced from 13 to eight and that her four-unit building wasn't legally split from the other building. The DHCR ruled for tenant. The two buildings were a horizontal multiple dwelling. Landlord's renovation of only four apartments in one building didn't qualify as a substantial rehabilitation. The buildings both remain subject to rent stabilization.

Webb: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. QL210051RT (4/4/03) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

QL210051RT.pdf152.5 KB