Tenant Bound by Court Ruling on Building's Substantial Rehab

Tenant complained of a rent overcharge. The DRA ruled against tenant and dismissed the complaint because the housing court had already ruled that the building was exempt from rent stabilization based on a substantial rehabilitation that took place between 1999 and 2001. Tenant appealed, claiming that he wasn't bound by the court decision.
The DHCR ruled against tenant. Tenant's 2004 lease advised him that his apartment wasn't subject to rent stabilization. Landlord started an eviction proceeding against tenant after tenant refused to sign a renewal lease offered by landlord. Tenant had asked the court to dismiss or delay the case in light of tenant's DHCR overcharge complaint. The court ruled against tenant, and tenant then refused to participate in the trial held in court. At trial, landlord proved that the building was substantially rehabilitated by adding a floor, as well as replacing all plumbing risers, waste lines, steam risers, gas lines, and electrical lines. The court also found that landlord had built new kitchens and bathrooms; put up new walls; installed new fixtures and new entrance and interior doors; replaced floor joists and flooring; replaced the heating system and fire escape; and built a new entrance and lobby. A new Certificate of Occupancy was issued, and the work cost over $500,000. Tenant didn't appeal the court's decision. Tenant deliberately defaulted at trial. The court had jurisdiction to determine the question of whether the building was substantially rehabilitated, and tenant was a party to that case even though he chose not to participate or appeal. Tenant couldn't seek a new decision from the DHCR on the same issue.

360 West 47th Street: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. WF410053RT (5/15/09) [3-pg. doc.]