Building Wasn't Substantially Rehabilitated

December 1, 2002

LVT Number: 16281

Landlord sued to evict tenant. Landlord claimed that the building was substantially rehabilitated in 1986 and was no longer subject to rent regulation. The building now contained five apartments. Tenant claimed that the work done didn't qualify as a substantial rehabilitation and that he was rent stabilized. The court ruled for tenant and dismissed the case. Under the Rent Stabilization Code and DHCR Operational Bulletin 95-2, landlord was required to replace 75 percent of the building-wide and apartment systems for the work to qualify as a substantial rehabilitation.

Landlord sued to evict tenant. Landlord claimed that the building was substantially rehabilitated in 1986 and was no longer subject to rent regulation. The building now contained five apartments. Tenant claimed that the work done didn't qualify as a substantial rehabilitation and that he was rent stabilized. The court ruled for tenant and dismissed the case. Under the Rent Stabilization Code and DHCR Operational Bulletin 95-2, landlord was required to replace 75 percent of the building-wide and apartment systems for the work to qualify as a substantial rehabilitation. Landlord didn't do so. He left parts of the old gas, plumbing, heating, and electrical systems in place and didn't replace all the floors, windows, doors, or interior stairways.

Cassorla v. Foster: NYLJ, 11/6/02, p. 20, col. 4 (Civ. Ct. NY; Cavallo, J)

Topics

More like this