Adjoining Buildings Weren't Horizontal Multiple Dwelling

(Decision submitted by Karen Schwartz-Sidrane, of the Rockville Centre law firm of Sidrane & Schwartz-Sidrane, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.)

Tenants of three adjoining buildings asked the DHCR for a ruling on their rent regulatory status. When new landlord bought the buildings in 2013, it sent tenants renewal lease offers at rent increases that were eight times the prior rents. Landlord claimed that they were unregulated. Tenants claimed that they were rent stabilized because their three buildings formed a horizontal multiple dwelling (HMD) that contained a total of 12 apartments. The DRA found that one of the buildings, containing three apartments, wasn’t subject to rent stabilization. But the two other buildings were an HMD that contained six or more units. Landlord and tenants both appealed.

The DHCR ruled against tenants, and for landlord. The buildings didn’t constitute an HMD. Claims of common ownership, operation, a single tax lot, and one or more shared structural features wasn’t enough to establish an HMD when there were countervailing factors. One building had its own heating boiler, single water heater, water main, sewer line, distinct roof space, electrical circuit panel with individual meters, separate gas main and meters, basement area with access to other basements by locked door, its own bell-buzzer or doorbell system, its own street entrance, three mailboxes, and its own separate and distinct facade and chimney. The DRA incorrectly found that another building was part of an HMD. That building also had its own water main, sewer line, electrical circuit panel with individual meters, bell-buzzer/doorbell system, entrance, and mailboxes.

United T, LLC/Ramos: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket Nos. CT210042RO, CU210012RT, CU10013RT (11/18/16) [12-pg. doc.]