Building Part of Horizontal Multiple Dwelling

Landlord asked the DHCR for a ruling that its building was exempt from rent stabilization. Landlord said that the building contained fewer than six apartments. The DHCR ruled against landlord, finding that the building was connected with another building. Together the buildings contained six or more apartments. It was therefore part of a horizontal multiple dwelling and subject to rent stabilization. Landlord then filed an Article 78 petition, claiming that the DHCR's decision was unreaosnable. The court sent the case back to the DHCR for further fact-finding. After review, the DHCR ruled against landlord. Evidence showed that before 2005, water for both buildings had been supplied through one water intake main located in the cellar of one of the two buildings. In addition, most of landlord's proof of separate building systems related to the condition of the buildings after 1987. What mattered was how many common facilities the buildings had in 1969, when the Rent Stabilization Law became effective. The buildings had one multiple dwelling registration, and common ownership since 1954. They also had common management and one super. Access from one building to the other could be obtained through crossing the rooftops and entering doors in the bulkheads. The buildings also had one heating plant. There was also a commercial tenant whose space ran through both buildings.

Sherwood 34 Associates: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. SA420016RP (10/4/07) [8-pg. doc.]