DHCR Decisions                                 STATE OF NEW YORK                     DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL                           OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION                                    GERTZ PLAZA                              92-31 UNION HALL STREET                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433     ------------------------------------X     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    :     ------------------------------------X                                       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 petition.     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,     1974.     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     rehabilitation.       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.     ISSUED:                                                                                                       ELLIOT SANDER                                     Deputy Commissioner