Substantial Rehabilitation Exemption Doesn't Apply to One Tenant

LVT Number: 13601

After a fire in a building covered by the ETPA in early 1995, tenant was forced to move out temporarily. He filed a complaint of reduction of services. The DRA ruled that landlord must make repairs, that tenant must be allowed to move back in, and that tenant must pay just $1.00 per month to preserve his right to move back in after repairs were made. Shortly after the fire, new landlord bought the now-vacant building and substantially rehabilitated it.

After a fire in a building covered by the ETPA in early 1995, tenant was forced to move out temporarily. He filed a complaint of reduction of services. The DRA ruled that landlord must make repairs, that tenant must be allowed to move back in, and that tenant must pay just $1.00 per month to preserve his right to move back in after repairs were made. Shortly after the fire, new landlord bought the now-vacant building and substantially rehabilitated it. New landlord got an order from the DHCR confirming that the building had been substantially rehabilitated and that it was now exempt from the ETPA. Tenant then appealed, claiming he was never notified of landlord's application and that he was entitled to move back in as a rent-regulated tenant. The DHCR ruled for tenant. While the building was now exempt from the ETPA for future tenants, tenant who lived there before the fire and was still entitled to move back, remained subject to rent regulation. Tenant showed that he had continued to pay the $1.00-per-month rent while he was waiting to be allowed to move back in.

Milio: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. ME910117RO (8/18/99) [4-pg. doc.]

Downloads

ME910117RO.pdf286.86 KB