Buildings Don't Form Horizontal Multiple Dwelling

New landlord asked the DHCR to determine whether its building at 447 Tenth Avenue was subject to rent stabilization. In 1987, the DRA had ruled that Apartment 4 was rent stabilized because 447 Tenth Avenue was part of a horizontal multiple dwelling with 449 Tenth Avenue next door. Together, the two buildings contained six or more apartments. But in 1986, the DRA had denied an overcharge complaint by another tenant at 447 Tenth Avenue, finding that the building wasn't rent stabilized because it contained fewer than six apartments. Tenant's PAR of that decision was denied. The DHCR ruled against new landlord, finding that the first order was binding because it was never appealed and because the second order didn't determine rent-stabilization status. Landlord appealed, claiming that the DHCR's decision was arbitrary and unreasonable. The case was reopened, and the DHCR again ruled against landlord based on an inspection of the two buildings. Landlord again appealed to the court, claiming that it wasn't given a proper chance to respond. The court sent the case back again. This time, a hearing was held and the DHCR ultimately ruled for landlord. Whether adjoining buildings together constitute a horizontal multiple dwelling depends on whether there are sufficient common facilities, ownership, management, and operation to warrant treating the buildings as one integrated multiple dwelling. Here, the separateness far outweighed the common elements. The buildings were two four-story brick tenement buildings that had been commonly owned and operated since 1954, shared a common commercial unit on the ground floor, and shared a single boiler/burner and hot water heater. One cable box and telephone line box served both buildings. Trash receptacles for both buildings were stored at 449. But each building had its own Certificate of Occupancy, MDR, tax lot number, real estate tax assessment, and metes and bounds description, and each was billed separately for water, sewer, electricity, and natural gas. The buildings didn't share a front wall and were separate and independent structures with no common walls. One building was slightly taller than the other, and they had different numbers of windows. There were major differences in how the buildings were configured, and the buildings had separate roofs, lobbies, basements, bell buzzer systems, water and sewer lines, entrances, mailboxes, and plumbing systems.

Sherwood 34 Associates: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. XI420002RP (1/27/12) [13-page doc.]