Landlord Replaced over 75% of Building Systems

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Facts: Landlord applied for a ruling that the building was exempt from rent stabilization because of substantial rehabilitation. The DRA ruled against landlord. The DRA's inspector had found that there were old radiators in some apartments, apartment flooring appeared to be original, sanded and coated with polyurethane, the video intercom appeared to be installed years after the rehab work, there was plaster instead of Sheetrock in one apartment, there was no work done to apartment doors, public hallways and floors didn't appear to be preserved for historic merit, as landlord claimed, and the roof hadn't been rubberized but only covered with tar paper. Landlord appealed, claiming that it had replaced over 75 percent of the building systems, that the DRA shouldn't have relied on the inspection report, and that the inspection report was incorrect on several items. DHCR: Landlord wins. Eleven building-wide systems were either totally replaced or qualified as structurally sound, upgraded, or aesthetic/historic merit exceptions permitted under the Rent Stabilization Code. There was new plumbing in all apartments, a new boiler was installed, new gas pipes were put in the basement, an audio intercom was installed at the time of the rehab and later replaced by the video intercom, there were new electric lines and meters in the basement, new windows in all apartments, the interior stairways were rehabbed to preserve the historic character of the 1940s, each apartment had a new or rehabilitated kitchen and bathroom, new flooring was blended with portions of the original flooring that were structurally sound, and except for one apartment, Sheetrock was used to restore walls and ceilings throughout the building.

Zimak Co.: DHCR Admin. Rev. Dckt. No. QH410030RO (1/7/03) [5-pg. doc.]