Landlord Claims Building Was Substantially Rehabbed

Landlord sued to evict tenant for nonpayment of rent, claiming that the apartment was unregulated. Landlord argued that the building was substantially rehabilitated in the late 1990s and asked the court to rule in its favor without a trial. Tenant claimed that he was rent stabilized and sought permission to conduct pre-trial questioning. The court ruled for tenant and against landlord.

Landlord appealed and lost. Although landlord owned the building at the time, landlord produced no proof that it had replaced at least 75 percent of the building-wide and apartment systems. This was the general requirement to prove substantial rehabilitation under DHCR Operational Bulletin 95-2. So a trial was needed to consider proof, and tenant's request for pre-trial discovery was granted. Contrary to landlord's claim, the court could consider proof of events  going back more than four years since the purpose was to determine whether tenant's apartment was regulated.

449 West 37 Realty LLC v. Herman: Index No. 571037/18, 2019 NY Slip Op 50201(U) (App. T. 1 Dept.; 2/25/19; Ling-Cohan, JP, Gonzalez, Cooper, JJ)