Building Substantially Rehabilitated

(Decision submitted by Eileen O'Toole of the Manhattan law firm of Kossoff Alper & Unger, attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord asked the DHCR for a determination that a building was exempt from rent stabilization because of substantial rehabilitation done after Dec. 31, 1973. The DHCR ruled for landlord. Tenant appealed, claiming that landlord could recover its costs through MCI increases. Tenant claimed also that his apartment wasn't subject to rent stabilization on Dec. 31, 1973, and so wasn't subject to the substantial rehabilitation exemption. The court and appeals court ruled against tenant. Landlord documented extensive renovations to the building. While the ability to recover costs through MCI increases was a factor to consider, it didn't bar a substantial rehabilitation exemption. And tenant can't raise the issue about whether his apartment was subject to the exemption because he didn't raise it before the DHCR.

Steffey v. DHCR: NYLJ, 10/27/00, p. 26, col. 1 (App. Div.1 Dept.; Tom, JP, Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner, Andrias, JJ)