Landlord Proved Building Was Substantially Rehabilitated

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenants claimed that their building was rent stabilized. Landlord claimed that the building was exempt from rent regulation because it had been substantially rehabilitated between 1987 and 1989. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, arguing that the renovation work in two first-floor apartments was done illegally, that landlord's proof of work done was insufficient, that the DHCR should have inspected the building, and that the building was never over 80 percent vacant when the work was done. The DHCR ruled against tenants. HPD records showed that the building was vacant when landlord claimed it was. When a building rehabilitation is started in a building that is at least 80 percent vacant, there is a presumption, at the time, that the building was substandard or seriously deteriorated. Landlord also had submitted architect's filings and affidavits, and a new C of O, proving that more than 75 percent of building-wide and individual apartment systems were replaced. All work was done legally.

Various Tenants of 445 17th St.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. SE210086RT (10/13/04) [3-pg. doc.]