DHCR Properly Denied Landlord's Application for Substantial Rehabilitation Exemption

The DHCR issued a ruling that landlord's building was subject to rent stabilization. Landlord appealed, claiming that the building was deregulated because it had been substantially rehabilitated after Jan. 1, 1974. Landlord argued that the DHCR's ruling was unreasonable. The court and appeals court ruled against landlord. Landlord didn't prove that the building was in substandard or seriously deteriorated condition. And landlord didn't show that at least 75 percent of building-wide and apartment systems had been replaced. Landlord argued that the DHCR should have presumed that the building was deteriorated. But DHCR's refusal to make this presumption was reasonable, since landlord didn't show that the building was at least 80 percent vacant when the renovation work began. Landlord also didn't submit sufficient documentation of the claimed work.

Pavia v. DHCR: NYLJ, 10/27/05, p. 24, col. 2 (App. Div. 1 Dept.; Buckley, PJ, Saxe, Marlow, Ellerin, Williams, JJ)