Landlord's Proposal Falls Short of Substantial Rehabilitation

Landlord asked the DHCR for a prior opinion on whether proposed work qualified as substantial rehabilitation that would remove the building from rent stabilization. The DRA ruled against landlord. In its appeal, landlord claimed that the DRA had misinterpreted landlord's documentation. The DHCR again ruled against landlord. Landlord submitted copies of a DOB building alteration permit showing that landlord intended to replace all mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems in the building. Four of the 16 apartments currently were occupied. Since the building wasn't 80 percent vacant, the DHCR couldn't presume that it was substandard or seriously deteriorated. And landlord didn't show that it would replace at least 75 percent of the building-wide and apartment systems. Landlord indicated that it would replace only three building systems. DOB records and landlord's documents showed that landlord intended only to add mirrors to elevators, repair existing fire escapes, repair interior stairways, and plaster ceiling and wall surfaces.

Irgang Group, Inc.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. UB410055RO (5/17/06) [5-pg. doc.)