Building Substantially Rehabilitated

(Decision submitted by Robert H. Berman of the Manhattan law firm of Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Schwartz & Nahins, PC, attorneys for the landlord.) The DRA ruled that landlord's building had been substantially rehabilitated after Jan. 1, 1974, and was no longer rent stabilized. Tenant appealed, claiming that landlord didn't prove that at least 75 percent of the building-wide and apartment systems had been completely replaced. The work done didn't include the gas supply, replacement of fire escapes, installation of incinerators or waste compactors, installation of an elevator, replacement of interior stairways, or replacement of doors and frames throughout the building. The DHCR ruled against tenant. Landlord proved that at least 75 percent of building systems had been replaced. There were six apartments, and five were vacant when landlord did the work. Landlord showed that there was new plumbing work, a new heating system, steam cleaning, pointing, repair of cornices and parapet work, refurbishing of fire escapes, installation of 30 new windows, new kitchen cabinets appliances, new kitchens and bathrooms, installation of oak flooring in the hallways, living room, and kitchen areas of the apartments, and installation of a new intercom and hallway lighting. The apartment work wasn't done in the one occupied apartment. Since that tenant lived in the building before the work was done, her apartment remained rent controlled.

Bishop: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. RE210009RT (8/27/03) [3-pg. doc.]