Landlord Didn't Prove Building Was Substantially Rehabbed

Landlord applied to the DHCR for a ruling that its Brooklyn building was exempt from rent stabilization due to substantial rehabilitation after Jan. 1, 1974. The DRA ruled against landlord, who appealed and lost.

The DRA found that the scope of the work described by landlord's expert was insufficient to prove that at least 75 percent of the building-wide and individual apartment systems, including common areas, were completely replaced as required by DHCR Operational Bulletin 95-2. Among other things, the building wasn't at least 80 percent vacant of residential tenants when renovation commenced in 2015. Three of the building's 13 apartments were then occupied.

Landlord also failed to prove that the building was in substandard or seriously deteriorated condition when the work began. Landlord also failed to give the DRA a full-blown copy of its architectural plans approved by DOB with an approved Tenant Protection Plan (TPP). In fact, DOB tenant safety notes for the project showed some systems and areas wouldn't be disturbed by the renovations.

Landlord also failed to prove that 12 of the building's 15 systems were replaced. Landlord didn't show replacement of the roof, fire escapes, interior staircase, pointing or exterior surface repair, intercoms, gas supply, or electrical work. In a separate case, the DHCR had found that landlord harassed building tenants between 2012 and 2014, engaging in a continuing and deliberate effort to cause tenants to vacate the building through interruption of, interference with, or decrease of a broad range of basic and essential services. Landlord also was convicted in 2017 of three counts of unlawful eviction of rent-stabilized tenants.

1578 Union Street Realty Corp.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. IM210046RO (8/12/20) [9-pg. doc.]