Two Adjoining Buildings Were Horizontal Multiple Dwelling

Landlord applied to the DHCR for a ruling that its two adjoining buildings were exempt from rent stabilization because they shouldn't be considered a Horizontal Multiple Dwelling (HMD) that, combined, contained six apartments. The DRA ruled against landlord, who appealed and lost.

The DHCR pointed out that New York's highest court had ruled in 1988 that buildings were an HMD where there were "sufficient indicia of common facilities, common ownership, management and operation to warrant treating the housing as an integrated ... complex."

The DRA had sent an inspector to the buildings and conducted an itemized review, finding more common than separate features.

Common features and systems the DHCR found were: same ownership and management since 1950, one deed for both buildings, attachment between the buildings, one building basement only that serviced both buildings, one gas-fired steam boiler that heated both buildings, separate gas-fired water heaters both located in one basement, one water meter for both buildings in the basement of one building despite separate water main supplies, one main electric panel service in one building that serviced both buildings, electric meters for both buildings located in the basement of one building, one common driveway for both buildings, one common concrete patio area between the two buildings, a shared identical front facade for each building, one shared chimney for both buildings, and shared roof space for both buildings as the roof access hatch for one building was sealed up.

Separate systems the DHCR found included: sewer waste lines, gas lines, and gas meters separated by building; three stories in each building with one apartment on each floor; one building with a three-button intercom system while the other had three bell/buzzers; each building with a separate street entrance and a separate two-car garage located in the rear of each building. One building had no adjoining building on its other side; the other had an unrelated adjoining building on its other side; mailboxes for each building were in that building's vestibule.

Cipolla: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. LU210019RO (2/29/24)[5-pg. document]