Prior DHCR Ruling Didn't Consider Whether Building Was Substantially Rehabbed

(Decision submitted by Dawn R. Myers, Esq. of the Manhattan law firm of Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins & Goidel, P.C., attorneys for the landlord.)

Landlord asked the DHCR for a determination that its building was exempt from rent stabilization due to substantial rehabilitation. The DRA closed the case "without action," finding that the building's regulatory status had been decided in a prior Rent Administrator's order dated Sept. 15, 2011. No appeal of the prior order had been filed.

Landlord appealed, and the case was reopened. Landlord pointed out that the prior order was issued in response to a building-wide service compliant and determined only that the building was rent stabilized because it contained six units. The prior order didn't address substantial rehabilitation and was unrelated to the current proceeding. Consideration of a claimed substantial rehabilitation may not be precluded by an order that made a finding of jurisdiction based on a totally different issue. The case was sent back to the DRA for substantive consideration of landlord's application.

Union Housing LLC: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. KP210032RO (7/8/22)[3-pg. document]