Buildings with Separate Facilities Aren't Horizontal Multiple Dwelling

(Decision submitted by Manhattan attorney Eileen O'Toole, who represented the landlord.) Facts: Tenant lived in a building containing four apartments. Tenant complained to the DHCR in 1996, claiming that the building was rent stabilized because it was connected to the three-unit building next door. Tenant argued that the combined seven-unit complex was a horizontal multiple dwelling. Landlord argued that the buildings weren't connected. Landlord owned both buildings for many years, and both boilers were located in the basement of one of the buildings. Landlord claimed that the buildings were otherwise separate enough that they couldn't be found to be a horizontal multiple dwelling. The DHCR ruled for tenant. Landlord challenged the DHCR's ruling in court. The court ruled against landlord, and landlord appealed again. Court: Landlord wins. The buildings were owned and managed together and on the same deed. There were two separate boilers in the basement of one building, one for each building. There were separate electric meters, water lines, sewer lines, gas lines, electric lines, electric meters, rooflines, fire escapes, mailboxes, postal service, ZIP codes, and entrance doors. DOB and HPD records also treated the buildings as separate. One of the buildings had a basement; the other had only a small cellar. A door in the basement between the two was kept locked. In a prior, unrelated case with very similar facts, the DHCR had ruled that another building wasn't a horizontal multiple dwelling. The DHCR didn't explain why it reached the opposite result in this case. Other similar cases decided by courts also found no horizontal multiple dwelling under similar circumstances. So the DHCR's decision was arbitrary and unreasonable and must be revoked.

721 Ninth Ave. LLC v. DHCR: NYLJ, 6/10/04, p. 26, col. 3 (App. Div. 1 Dept.; Andrias, JP, Williams, Lerner, Friedman, Marlow, JJ)