Commercial Use Illegal

December 1, 1993

LVT Number: 8404

Tenant complained of a rent overcharge. The DRA ruled for tenant because landlord didn't submit a full rent history. Landlord appealed, claiming that tenant wasn't subject to rent stabilization because the apartment was commercial---not residential. The DHCR ruled against landlord. Even though tenant had a commercial lease, tenant also lived in the apartment. And landlord had violated the building's Certificate of Occupancy (C of O)---which permitted only one apartment in the building's basement. Landlord had subdivided the basement apartment to create tenant's apartment.

Tenant complained of a rent overcharge. The DRA ruled for tenant because landlord didn't submit a full rent history. Landlord appealed, claiming that tenant wasn't subject to rent stabilization because the apartment was commercial---not residential. The DHCR ruled against landlord. Even though tenant had a commercial lease, tenant also lived in the apartment. And landlord had violated the building's Certificate of Occupancy (C of O)---which permitted only one apartment in the building's basement. Landlord had subdivided the basement apartment to create tenant's apartment. The DHCR couldn't let landlord profit from this violation.

8 East 64th Street, Apt. 1F: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. DK 410064-RO (10/5/93) [4-page document]

Downloads

DK410064-RO.pdf277.07 KB

Topics

More like this