BUILDINGS’ INDEPENDENCE WASN'T CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED
After a holdover proceeding was brought against a purported free-market tenant, the latter claimed she was rent stabilized because the building in which she lived, and an adjoining residential structure, constituted a “horizontal multiple dwelling” which rendered all the units therein subject to regulatory protection.
The Queens County Civil Court looked at the configuration and thought that the buildings were sufficiently independent, and because it was of the view they didn’t share “sufficient common facilities and services,” a judgment of possession issued in the landlord’s favor.
On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, thought the Civil Court had erred since it was owner’s “burden of proof” to show the buildings were exempt from the rent laws. And because no evidence was provided showing the separation of the structures before 2017, the owner thus failed to evince the buildings were “not part of a horizontal multiple dwelling at any time” prior thereto; with the operative look-back date being as early as January 1, 1974.
Given that gap in proof, the AT2 vacated the underlying judgments and dismissed the case.
That was some horizontal dance ….
# # #
DECISION