LL trying to remove Rent Stabilized status. Is my apt a HMD?

[bluetanktop]

I live in RS unit in NYC, stabilized because of a J-51 benefit that expires in the 2030s.

Our apartment is in a rear building that resides behind a front building, both at the same address.

Although we've signed multiple RS renewals, LL recently wrote to us to say that our unit will no longer be rent stabilized after this term because they’ve learned that the J-51 benefit only applies to renovations done to units in the front building.

We wrote back with our rental history from DHCR and docs that show that the J-51 has not expired, but the LL says they registered the units in our building erroneously with DHCR 4+ years ago and the back building was never part of the J-51 docs.

After doing some research, we believe our building and the front building would be considered a “horizontal multiple dwelling” and the rear building units are in fact rent stabilized. Both buildings share a single entrance, intercom, mailbox, and BBL. Both buildings look alike—have similar renovations, railings, etc. (They do not, however, share a boiler.)

We also see on DOF that there is no separate tax bill for the rear building, as both are on the same block and lot. Tax docs show 2 buildings, and a total # of units equaling the front and back building units combined, and J-51 abatements.

Our lease doesn't expire until next year, so I'm unsure on how and when to move forward, especially if the LL doesn't deliver a RS renewal. We're trying to keep the peace, but also don't want to be taken advantage of. Thanks in advance!

[TenantNet]

Are the front and rear buildings connected in any way? Do they have common mechanical systems, i.e., is there one boiler that serves up heat and hot water to both buildings? I'm not agreeing with the LL, but yes (and you already know this) there is a thing called Horizontal Multiple Dwelling where two (or more) buildings essentially function as one.

You cite things like common entrance, etc. You say they don't share a boiler, but might that have been the case when the buildings were constructed? For example, in my building, the "heat plant" served several buildings on the block when it was constructed. Over the years that ceased to be the case as the other buildings obtained their own boilers.

Has there been any DHCR decision or court ruling that says this (but even if not, that does not mean it's not a HMD). It just means you might have to litigate it. And this is a perfect time to start a tenants association if none exists.

Also, I don't think you say, does the back building have 6+ units? Was it RS prior to the J-51 improvements? If it's not part of the J-51 program, then in our view, it should continue to be RS.

Seems like you're going to have to do some more research with DHCR, HPD, DOB and DOF. I'd get the original J51 applications to start.

I think you have a good case and it seems you've done some research on this. But J-51 can get complicated. You should probably speak with an attorney that handles these things. And consider that maybe the LL is doing down this road because someone else has, and gotten away with it.

Also understand that in most cases I've seen, HMD become an issue when one of the buildings have less than six units - and therefore would not normally qualify for being RS. But when combined, there are 6+ units.

I'd also look at these search results (this is a landlord publication)
https://www.landlordvtenant.com/categor ... e-dwelling

[bluetanktop]

Thanks for your reply! The front building has 6 units and was RS before renovations, the back building has 2 units and according to the DHCR history wasn't rent stabilized until the J-51 went into effect.

You have to walk through the front building in order to access the back building (there's no other access point), and our patios are connected by the same fencing in the courtyard. I believe we also share a water line.

The closest case I can find on LVT is this one: #28184, which sounds really similar—thanks for sending that!

Sidenote: do you know if the LL is notified if you do a FOIL for J-51 records? Thanks again for your insight.

[TenantNet]

That could be a problem. I asked a tenant atty who thought the lack of a shared boiler would make it difficult. But I would still research cases (see the link from above).

He mentioned collateral estoppel, but I'm not sure if that's an issue here. Either way, it's bound to be litigated. AFAIK, the LL should not be notified of a FOIL request, but there are exceptions.

I emailed you a copy of the case you mentioned (although have not read it)

[bluetanktop]

Thanks for the email. I've been doing lots of research and every day I learn something new, seems like a pretty complicated issue. Appreciate the help!

[bluetanktop]

Hi there, I'm back a year later as my LL has now sent a renewal lease. It is not a RS renewal lease and it proposes increasing my rent by 50%. They still say the J-51 only applies to the 6 units in the front building and the back building units should not be regulated. On the DOF, the building is listed as 2B - (7-10 Unit Residentl Rental Bldg) and shows 2 buildings, all on the same tax block and lot.

I'm planning to talk to a lawyer, but I'm curious—are there any cases where J-51 benefits would only apply partially to a building? In all of my research I've seen that all units in a building receiving J-51 benefits must be RS.

[TenantNet]

A couple things at work here.

You can challenge the LL's assertion of the unit(s) not being RS. Has there been any previous litigation on this in the last year since your previous posts? I would consider a consultation with a tenant attorney who knows the HMD and J51 rules. How it dovetails with J-51 coverage, I can't say.

I think you can sign the lease, but I would mark on the lease "under protest" and "see reservation of rights" where a cover letter will say what you're objecting to (you can also leave it vague as to "any and all rights." You can challenge this in court or by DHCR.

Another option is to invoke the recently enacted Good Cause Eviction (GCE) law. FYI, we opposed this law as it's weak in many ways and precluded stronger tenant protections. But it is law now, except most new laws will be litigated and tested.

If you're RS, then GCE would not apply to you (RS rules would). But if not RS - which is what the LL is claiming - then GCE might apply if it passes all the other rules.

There are many articles out there and many have incorrect information in our opinion. However I would read this: https://legalaidnyc.org/get-help/housin ... ction-law/

Essentialy, if the unit is covered, as part of a court case (which is why you would not go to DHCR), you could claim the 50% would not be permissible for non-RS tenants. GCE is a defense tenants may raise in court. You would still not get a lease and the allowable rent would be more than RS increases, but it would not be 50%.

I would also look at the registration issue. I think there's a limit as to invoking "mistakes," but I know registrations can be amended. I would dig around on that. Here's something to look at https://www.landlordvtenant.com/article ... ial-errors

Here's another from a LL law firm (go to a tenant attorney, not a LL one)
https://www.rosenbergestis.com/wp-conte ... 7-2021.pdf

And maybe this
https://hcr.ny.gov/system/files/documen ... 5-2024.pdf

Remember Google is your friend

Did they amend the registration? You can challenge a LLs registration, but I don't know if a court would consider that or remand it to the agency. That can lead to confusion if you're invoking Good Cause in the courts (AFAIK, DHCR has no jurisdiction on Good Cause).

As for your other question, I'm not really up on J51 issues, so save that question for an attorney.

[bluetanktop]

Hi there, thanks so much for your reply (and sorry for my belated one). I've looked into GCE, but unfortunately it looks like my particular building doesn't qualify, but I'm so grateful for those whom it will benefit.

We've politely yet firmly requested a proper RS lease renewal and are planning to have a lawyer send a demand letter if we don't hear back within a week. Appreciate all of the resources and info you've sent!

[bluetanktop]

Just wanted to follow up with some good news. After sharing all of the DOF and DHCR records we had, the building owners sent us a RS lease! We didn't even have to pay a lawyer to write a letter. Thanks for all of the support and resources!

[TenantNet]

Your 7/16/24 post indicates you're in touch with a tenant attorney. That's good. Of course it all depends on the LL and whatever lawyer they are using.

Why does GCE not apply to your building?

From yesterday's post, that also sounds good, but you still need to be careful. You say the LL gave you a RS lease. Is it a vacancy lease or renewal lease? All DHCR renewal leases must be on the RTP-8 form. See https://hcr.ny.gov/system/files/documen ... able_1.pdf

But initial or vacancy lease can be almost anything the LL wants.

Second, make sure he sends you a RS registration by July 31. That's the yearly deadline for all RS units and reports the legal rent as it existed on April 1 of each year.

Did you get a rent history going back to 1984? I would ask DHCR for that.

You can also ask DHCR for copies of all registrations going back to 1984 (it might be 1-2 pages listing the years). And if this is the first year, there might be nothing. Check to see if the lease comes with any notice as to J51 expiration. Down the road that might be important.

For now just compile research If the rent he offered is not proper, you might have cause to claim for an adjustment of the monthly rent (seeking an overcharge is a different thing and has a 4 year limitation).

You want to do research as the law is always changing on this stuff and you don't want to have it blow-up in your face. that's why I recommend caution, and from time to time consult with a tenant attorney. If any of these documents are missing or incomplete, I would suggest not ask the LL now. Let the LL go back to sleep.