Building Not Substantially Rehabilitated

Landlord asked the DHCR to rule on whether the building was exempt from rent stabilization based on substantial rehabilitation. Prior landlord had bought the building vacant in 1996 after major fire damage, and had performed extensive work. The DRA ruled against landlord, finding that five of the 14 building systems had not been replaced. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord didn't prove that at least 75 percent of the building-wide and apartment systems were completely replaced with new systems. Landlord didn't complete installation of a new heating system until 2001. Three of the apartment radiators were retrofitted with new radiators in the bathrooms, but the other apartments received refurbished radiators. So landlord didn't replace the entire heating system. Diagrams showed that the plumbing system was not changed. There was no proof that the interior stairway was replaced. Landlord claimed that walls, ceilings, molding, and floors in the common areas were preserved because of historical detail. But this was inconsistent with landlord's claim that the building was a burned-out shell that required gut renovation.

294 Manhattan, LLC: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. UH410019RO (11/17/06) [9-pg. doc.]