Three-Apartment Building Wasn't Part of Horizontal Multiple Dwelling

Tenant complained of a reduction in services. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced his rent. Landlord appealed, claiming that the building wasn't subject to rent regulation. The DHCR ruled against landlord, finding that tenant's building was part of a horizontal multiple dwelling. Landlord filed an Article 78 court appeal, and the case was sent back to the DHCR for further investigation.

The DHCR then ruled for landlord. The building at 161 East 33rd Street was four stories, with a ground floor store and one apartment on each of the upper three floors. The building had no Certificate of Occupancy. HPD inspection in 1911 indicated that the building also had three apartments and a store at that time. The building, and the next-door building at 163 East 33rd Street, each had separate deeds, boilers, drainage systems, roofs, sewer connections, and electric and gas mains with separate utility accounts. The buildings at 155 and 163 East 33rd Street may have previously been operated as one building, but this wasn't true for 163 and 161 East 33rd. The listing of 161 East 33rd Street as 163 East 33rd in the DHCR's database was in error. And the fact that entry to tenant's apartment could be gained only by entering 163 East 33rd Street was insufficient to prove that 161 East 33rd was subject to rent stabilization. There were insufficient common elements to find that 161 East 33rd Street was part of a horizontal multiple dwelling.

Ifarco Realty: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. CW430002RP (2/12/15) [4-pg. doc.]