Rye Declares Buildings Combined, Subject to Rent Stabilization

Landlord asked the DHCR for a ruling on whether two buildings owned on the same block were subject to rent stabilization. The City of Rye had determined that the buildings were rent stabilized. Landlord claimed that they weren't rent stabilized. The DRA ruled against landlord because the city had already made a ruling on this issue. Landlord appealed. In Rye, buildings with 50 or more apartments are subject to the ETPA. In February 2006, the city had declared at a city council meeting that landlord's two buildings were rent stabilized. Landlord said that one of the buildings had 98 apartments. The other, on the same block, had only 10 apartments. Landlord claimed that the two buildings were physically separate from each other, had no shared building systems, were built at different times by two different owners, and had different designs. Landlord also claimed Rye's action was unconstitutional. The DHCR ruled against landlord. The City of Rye had issued a resolution placing landlord's two buildings under ETPA coverage. This was part of the city's overall declaration of ETPA coverage in that locality. The DHCR didn't have the authority to rule on a challenge to the city's resolution.

Highland Hall Apartments, LLC: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. VF930006RO (10/31/07) [4-pg. doc.]