Landlord Should Have Offered Renewal Leases

LVT Number: #22996

Landlord asked the DHCR for permission to refuse renewal of tenants' rent-stabilized leases so that it could evict tenants and demolish the building. The DRA ruled against landlord in 2008 because the proposed work didn't qualify as a demolition under the Rent Stabilization Code. Landlord appealed, but its PAR was terminated in April 2009. Landlord then filed a second demolition application with the DHCR. The DRA ruled against landlord for procedural reasons. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord prematurely filed its second application.

Landlord asked the DHCR for permission to refuse renewal of tenants' rent-stabilized leases so that it could evict tenants and demolish the building. The DRA ruled against landlord in 2008 because the proposed work didn't qualify as a demolition under the Rent Stabilization Code. Landlord appealed, but its PAR was terminated in April 2009. Landlord then filed a second demolition application with the DHCR. The DRA ruled against landlord for procedural reasons. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord prematurely filed its second application. Landlord should have offered tenants renewal leases after the first demolition application was denied. A new application was appropriate only after tenants' leases were again renewed and subsequently expired.

81 Warren Street Realty Corp.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket Nos. YH420032-34RO (9/23/10) [4-pg. doc.]

Downloads

YH420032-34RO.pdf139.78 KB