Landlord Fined $6,250 for Violations Due to Illegal Transient Use of Apartment

DOB issued three violation notices to landlord for failing to maintain a building in a code-compliant manner and failing to provide a fire alarm system. DOB's inspector said that he observed illegal transient use at the Class "A" multiple dwelling by four guests staying in an apartment for fewer than 30 days without the host present. The guests had booked the short-term rental through Airbnb. The inspector also observed a lack of the required number of means of egress for every floor where there was transient use, lack of an automatic fire alarm system, and failure to provide a fire alarm system for transient use of the fourth-floor apartment.

At a hearing, landlord argued that it wasn't responsible for the transient use because it had no knowledge of it, didn't permit it, and terminated the tenant's lease when it learned of the transient use. The ALJ noted that landlord could've discovered the transient use by due diligence review of Airbnb online reviews. But the ALJ dismissed the violations because DOB failed to establish that the premises fell within the specific occupancy groups that require the heightened safety requirements claimed in the violations, or that the existing means of egress were inadequate.

DOB appealed and won. Landlord didn't dispute DOB's showing that the building was subject to legal occupancy requirements for a  Class "A" multiple dwelling. DOB's inspector observed only one means of egress through the front door to the apartment. The existing fire escapes didn't satisfy Building Code Section 1021.1 requirements of a least two independent exits per story, which became applicable upon conversion of the apartment to transient use. And because fire escapes aren't separate from interior spaces by fire-resistance-rated construction, they aren't sufficient to meet the egress requirements of Building Code Section 1021.1. Also, based on the conversion to transient use, Building Code Section 903.2.8 required installation of an automatic sprinkler system because the premises falls within Residential Group R, documented in HPD summaries and I-cards. Class I designation of the charges as an immediately hazardous violation also applied because transient residents lack knowledge of the building layout, including fire exits and the fire safety plan. This necessitated required fire protection systems. Landlord was fined $6,250.

DOB v. 110 Madison Street CC LLC: ECB App. No. 2100460 (6/24/21) [4-pg. doc.]