Landlord Doesn't Prove Building Was Substantially Rehabbed

Landlord claimed that its building was exempt from rent stabilization based on substantial rehabilitation. The DRA ruled against landlord, who appealed and lost. Landlord pointed out that a renovation application had been filed with DOB in 2002, and signed off on in 2010. Landlord claimed that the building was vacant while the work was being done and that the DRA found in error that it was more than 20 percent occupied during renovation. But DOB records didn't describe the scope of the work performed, and there were no work permits, engineer or architect reports, or DOB inspection records for any work done on major building systems. Landlord also had acknowledged in DOB records that plumbing work wasn't part of the project. Plans filed with DOB also included directions about the work that indicated that there were tenants in occupancy. There was no proof that the building was vacant and deteriorated when the work began in 2006. Contrary to landlord's additional claim that there were only five apartments in the building, records showed that there were six units both before 1972 and after the renovation was completed.

Throop Towers LLC: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. CR210007RO (11/6/14) [6-pg. doc.]