Trial Needed on Whether Landlord Must Restore Tenants to Occupancy of Damaged Building

Facts: The DOB issued a vacate order for a building after it was damaged by fire in 1998. Rent-stabilized tenants moved out temporarily. They filed a complaint with the DHCR for reduction in services. The DRA ruled for tenants, finding that for as long as the apartment was uninhabitable, tenants could pay $1 per month to maintain their tenancies until they moved back in. Landlord appealed the DRA's decision and argued that it wasn't obligated to rebuild the fire-damaged building so tenants could move back in. Landlord pointed to a prior DHCR advisory opinion letter that stated this. The DHCR ruled against landlord, saying that it was premature for it to decide this issue because landlord hadn't yet done anything with the building. And the prior opinion letter concerned a building that was burned to the ground, so it might not apply here. After reconsideration, the DHCR conceded that it wouldn't rule on whether landlord was obligated to restore tenants to occupancy and that landlord could raise this issue in another case. Landlord then applied to DOB for permission to renovate the building. Landlord also informed tenants that it didn't intend to restore their apartments, but would instead build a new building and wasn't obliged to offer tenants newly created apartments in that building. Tenants then sued landlord for wrongful eviction because landlord refused to restore them to occupancy. The court ruled for tenants without a trial, and landlord appealed. Court: Landlord wins. Landlord claimed that the building was beyond repair. At least one tenant claimed that her apartment was intact. A trial was needed to determine the facts. If the building was so damaged that landlord must demolish it, landlord wouldn't be required to restore tenants to occupancy.

Quiles v. Term Equities & HPD: NYLJ, 10/31/05, p. 26, col. 2 (App. Div. 1 Dept.; Sullivan, JP, Ellerin, Nardelli, Sweeny, JJ)