Landlord Claims Building Was Substantially Rehabilitated

Westchester County tenant complained that landlord didn't offer a rent-stabilized renewal lease. Tenant's prior leases all stated that tenant was subject to the ETPA. In response, landlord claimed that the prior leases were in error. Landlord said that the building was substantially rehabilitated after Jan. 1, 1974, and therefore wasn't subject to rent stabilization. The DRA ruled for tenant because there was no order on file with the DHCR exempting tenant's apartment from the ETPA. Landlord appealed, claiming that no prior order was needed. The DHCR ruled for landlord. Because landlord raised substantial rehabilitation in response to tenant's complaint, the DRA should have made a determination on that issue. No prior determination was required. Landlord also had submitted extensive documentation and further review was required. Landlord submitted a sworn statement that the building was completely vacant in 1996, that landlord's architect filed plans with the Town of Eastchester, and that landlord employed an engineer and electrician. Landlord said it replaced ceilings, walls, and floors of apartments and installed all new fixtures and plumbing, heating, and electrical systems. Landlord submitted copies of its architectural plans, work permit for demolition and refurbishment, work permits for the boiler replacement, electrical work and meter replacement, and a certificate of compliance issued by the local Buildings Department. The case was sent back to the DRA for further review.

Hillside Avenue Associates, LLC: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. VJ910077RO (11/29/07) [5-pg. doc.]