Two Buildings on Same Tax Lot Didn't Comprise Horizontal Multiple Dwelling

The DHCR initiated a proceeding in 2013 to determine the rent regulatory status of tenant’s apartment. Landlord had filed a Report of Vacancy Decontrol (Form RA-42V) with the DHCR in 2013 stating that the rent-controlled tenant died in August 2006, that the building had five apartments and that, therefore, the apartment wasn’t subject to rent stabilization. DHCR inspection in 2014 showed that the building was vacant and had been gutted to the studs. The building had six mailboxes and a separate entrance from the building behind it on the same property. DOB records showed that the property was comprised of two separate buildings, front and rear. HPD records provided varying accounts of the number of apartments at the property. The DRA ruled that the apartment was rent stabilized because it was part of a horizontal multiple dwelling (HMD) containing six apartments altogether. The DRA noted that a prior 2001 DHCR order regarding another apartment in the same building found that it wasn’t rent stabilized because the building contained fewer than six apartments. But that order didn’t consider the fact that the building was part of an HMD.

Landlord appealed and won. Landlord argued that it had relied on the DHCR’s prior order for 13 years, and that the two buildings were separate. There was no mechanical or structural commonality. The buildings had separate heating systems, hot water supplies, sewer lines, mailboxes, electrical service, and gas service. The DHCR agreed that there was insufficient proof that the two buildings were an HMD. Common ownership and a single tax lot wasn’t enough. DHCR’s inspection found no shared systems. There was no proof that the buildings were connected internally or had a common facade. 

Wallin: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. DQ210054RO (7/15/16) [5-pg. doc.]