STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: BA 510363-RO
DRO DOCKET NO.: ZAG 520011-UC
ALICE M. DEAR PETITIONER :
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On January 13, 1987 the above named petitioner-owner filed a Petition for
Administrative Review against an order issued by the District Rent
Administrator located at Gertz Plaza, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica,
New York. Said order was issued on December 10, 1986 and concerned the
premises located at 400 West 149th Street, New York, New York.
This case began July 28, 1986 when the petitioner filed an application to
determine whether the building was exempt from the Rent Stabilization Law.
In her application, the owner claimed that the building was completely or
substantially rehabilitated on or after January 1, 1974. She purchased
the building in 1981. It then contained 8 units. The substantial
renovations took place "over the past several years" and included
rewiring, replumbing and replacing the chimney.
The Administrator denied the application because the building had been
converted to less than 5 units after the base date and thus all tenants
were still subject to rent stabilization. The order made no mention of
the rehabilitation issue.
After careful review of the evidence in the record the Commissioner denies
The owner is incorrect in her belief that the DHCR policy is to allow
relief under the circumstances of conversion to less than six units. The
Commissioner has ruled, and the courts have affirmed, that what determines
stabilization coverage is the number of units in the building on the base
date of June 30, 1974. DHCR records show that the building was previously
subject to Rent Control and contained more than six apartments on June 30,
Turning to the issue of the rehabilitation, the Commissioner finds that,
while the work done may have indeed been significant, it does not rise to
the level, of "substantial rehabilitation "as set forth in the Code.
(Section 9NYCRR 2520.11). Petitioner herself stated that the renovations
were "with minimal inconvenience and disruption to lifestyle in instances
where the apartment was occupied. The fact that work was done in occupied
units with minimal inconvenience seems to indicate that the modifications
do not meet the standards of "substantial modification." Furthermore, in
DOCKET NUMBER: BA 510363-RO
order to qualify for an exemption based upon substantial rehabilitation
the owner has to show that the building was completely vacant prior to the
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it is
ORDERED, that the petition herein be, and hereby is, denied and that the
decision of the Rent Administrator be, and hereby is affirmed.