Landlord Didn't Prove Building Was Substantially Rehabbed

Landlord asked the DHCR to deregulate a building based on substantial rehabilitation performed between 1989 and 1991. The DRA ruled against landlord because four previous applications for the same relief had been denied. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord claimed that later renovations, performed between 2008 and 2011, completed the substantial rehabilitation. The DHCR disagreed. Landlord's first application was denied in 2003 without prejudice. Landlord's second application was denied after appeal in 2006 because landlord had denied access for DHCR inspection, had apparently increased the number of apartments, and had not obtained a new Certificate of Occupancy (C of O). Landlord's third application was denied in 2007 based on a finding that it was an improper attempt to overturn the denial of landlord's second application. Landlord's fourth application was denied in 2009 because landlord hadn't appealed the denial of its third application. The DHCR also noted that landlord had submitted a new C of O 17 years after the alterations were completed. Landlord couldn't now reopen the case with its fifth application. Landlord couldn't connect the 1989-1991 work to any work performed in 2008 to attack the prior orders. The DHCR repeatedly determined that the 1989-1991 work wasn't a substantial rehabilitation. And the 2008 work was a separate project. 

Smolarczyk: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. ZK210034RO (11/13/14) [7-pg. doc.]