Landlord Claims Building Was Substantially Rehabilitated

Landlord asked the DHCR to determine whether a building was exempt from rent stabilization due to a substantial rehabilitation. The DRA ruled for landlord, and tenants appealed. The DHCR reopened the case. The DRA found that the building was vacant when the work was done and that landlord had replaced or upgraded 15 of the 17 building systems that the DHCR specifies must be replaced to qualify. But the DHCR also requires that, to qualify, all ceiling, flooring, and wall surfaces in common areas must be replaced, and that ceiling, wall, and floor surfaces in apartments, if not replaced, must be made as new. The DRA's order made no finding as to whether these criteria were met. So the DRA must determine whether this work also was done before ruling on whether the building was substantially rehabilitated.

29 Avenue B Tenants' Association: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. ZH410060RT (2/7/12) [3-pg. doc.]