No Substantial Rehabilitation Since Work Not Done on Upper Floors

Landlord asked the DRA that his apartment building be exempted from rent stabilization due to substantial rehabilitation. The DRA ruled against landlord, finding that the building hadn't been substantially rehabilitated. Landlord appealed, claiming that the rehabilitation work was done in two parts. Landlord renovated the basement and the first and second floors in 1984 and the third and fourth floors in 1987. Landlord submitted copies of plans, although not ''approved,'' showing that the first part of the work had been done. The 1984 plans stated that no work was to be done to the third and fourth floors, and landlord submitted no revised plans. There was insufficient proof that the second part of the rehab work was completed. Landlord submitted only a copy of a 1987 contract for extensive renovations, but no documents showing that the work had actually been done.

Goldman: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. CE430060RO (11/14/97) [2-page document]