Buildings Are a Horizontal Multiple Dwelling

Facts: Landlord sued to evict nine tenants in four neighboring buildings. Landlord claimed that each building contained fewer than six apartments and that the buildings weren't subject to any rent regulation. Tenants claimed that they were rent stabilized. The buildings had a long history of common ownership; since 1910, they were also sold as a single parcel. The buildings were on a single tax lot, billed jointly by the city. Since at least 1974, one superintendent has worked for all four buildings. Rent collection procedures for all four buildings were the same. Three of the buildings had separate multiple-dwelling registration applications, with the same managing agent. At least three of the buildings also had a common fire, casualty, and liability insurance policy. In addition the buildings shared a single boiler and oil storage tank and burner. One commercial space ran through the first floor of all four buildings. A single cornice ran across the four buildings. Each building had a separate entrance and separate roof doors. There was no access between the buildings, other than the first floor commercial space. The buildings had separate sewer systems, fire escapes, and sprinkler systems, and at least two of the buildings had separate gas and electric meters. Landlord claimed that the DOB had always treated the buildings as separate, and each building had a separate certificate of occupancy. Court: The buildings constitute a horizontal multiple dwelling and are subject to rent stabilization. The rent stabilization law states that a building shall be deemed to contain six or more dwelling units if it's part of a multiple-family garden-type maisonette dwelling complex that has common facilities such as a sewer line, water main, or heating plant, and is operated as a unit under common ownership---even if certificates of occupancy were issued for portions of the complex as a one- or two-family dwelling. Here, the buildings were historically and functionally interdependent and have always been treated as one unit. Landlord's nonpayment petitions were dismissed.

Stewart v. Ancion: NYLJ, p. 26, col. 3 (4/23/93) (Civ. Ct. Kings; Friedman, J)