Tenant in Substantially Rehabbed Building Transferred at Landlord's Request

LVT Number: #29751

Landlord asked the DHCR for a ruling that its building was exempt from rent regulation based on substantial rehabilitation. The DRA ruled for landlord, finding that the building was formerly a commercial building that was altered to 24 residential units. Since the apartments were all new installations, the DHCR's general requirement that an owner must replace 75 percent of building and apartment systems to qualify for substantial rehabilitation didn't apply. Tenant appealed and won, in part.

Landlord asked the DHCR for a ruling that its building was exempt from rent regulation based on substantial rehabilitation. The DRA ruled for landlord, finding that the building was formerly a commercial building that was altered to 24 residential units. Since the apartments were all new installations, the DHCR's general requirement that an owner must replace 75 percent of building and apartment systems to qualify for substantial rehabilitation didn't apply. Tenant appealed and won, in part. Although landlord proved that the building was substantially rehabbed, tenant remained rent stabilized because she had relocated to her apartment from another rent-stabilized apartment at the landlord's request. Landlord then filed an Article 78 court appeal, claiming that the DHCR's decision was unreasonable. All sides agreed that the DHCR would take the case back for reconsideration. The DHCR then sent the case back to the Rent Administrator to consider whether tenant maintained independent status as rent stabilized.

Martinez: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. GU210004RP (9/26/18) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

GU210004RP.pdf1.09 MB