DOC

Proposed Order

By Hector Fisher,2014-08-17 15:54
10 views 0
Proposed Order

    ORDER

NEW YORK CITY

    LOFT BOARD

     Loft Board Order No. 3092

    In the Matter of the Loft Board Initiated

    Application Concerning Docket No. LE-0489

     thth11-13 WEST 18 STREET RE: 11-13 West 18 Street

     New York, New York

    IMD No. 10594

ORDER

     The New York City Loft Board (“Loft Board”) accepts the Report and Recommendation of Director of Hearings Martha Cruz dated June 28, 2006.

     On January 13, 1989, the New York City Department of Buildings issued a final thcertificate of occupancy for 11-13 West 18 Street, New York, New York, (“the

    Building”) under certificate number 93480. The owner, Pattadakal Corp. (“Owner”) is in compliance with Multiple Dwelling Law ? 284(1) and the Building is no longer an interim multiple dwelling (“IMD”). A final rent order is not necessary in this case

    because all of the IMD units are owner-occupied. Consequently, pursuant to MDL ? 286(8) they are not subject to rent regulation.

     Effective thirty-five days from the date of the mailing of this Order, this Building is no longer an interim multiple dwelling and is no longer under the jurisdiction of the New York City Loft Board.

DATED: July 20, 2006

    Marc Rauch

    Chairperson

DATE LOFT ORDER MAILED:

    Members Concurring: Chairperson Rauch, Bolden-Rivera, Delaney, Orrantia, St.

    Pierre, Lusskin, Barowitz, (7)

Members Absent: Jaffe (1)

NEW YORK CITY

    LOFT BOARD

     REPORT AND

    In the Matter of the Loft Board Initiated RECOMMENDATION

    Application Concerning

     Docket No. LE-0489

     th RE: 11-13 West 18 Street th STREET New York, New York 11-13 WEST 18

    IMD No. 10594

     MARTHA CRUZ, DIRECTOR OF HEARINGS

BACKGROUND

     On January 13, 1989, the New York City Department of Buildings issued a final thcertificate of occupancy for 11-13 West 18 Street, New York, New York (“the

    Building”) under certificate number 93480. Pursuant to Title 29 of the Rules of the City of New York (“RCNY”) ? 2-01(i)(1), the owner of the building, Pattadakal Corp.

    (“Owner”) was then eligible to apply for rent guidelines board (“RGB”) increases and for rent adjustments based on the costs of compliance. The Owner did not file an application for rent adjustments, thus, the Owner is deemed to have waived its right to a rent adjustment for code compliance costs pursuant to 29 RCNY ? 2-01(1)(ii). Nor has the Owner filed for RGB increases for this Building.

     1 On May 11, 2006, the Owner submitted a Co-op/Condominium Exemption Form

    for the building stating that all eight interim multiple dwelling (“IMD”) units are owner-2occupied. A no-action letter from the Attorney General’s office was filed with the

    exemption form.

    The New York City Loft Board (“Loft Board”) filed the instant application on May 11, 2006 seeking removal of the Building from its jurisdiction. All eight IMD units were served and all eight IMD unit occupants answered.

ANALYSIS

     According to Loft Board records, the Building was originally registered with the Loft Board on January 11, 1984, containing eight IMD units with two units each on the second, third, fourth and fifth floors.

    The units were identified as #2E, #2W, #3E, #3W, #4E, #4W, #5E, and 5W. The building has obtained a final certificate of occupancy that lists these same units as Class A

     1 The Loft Board initiated application mistakenly states that the Co-op/Condominium Exemption Form for this building was submitted on April 5, 2006. The correct filing date is May 11, 2006. 2 Although the exemption form states that the certificate of occupancy was issued on January 18, 1985, the date on the certificate is listed as January 13, 1989.

    apartments, thus the Owner is in compliance with Multiple Dwelling Law (“MDL”) ? 284(1). See, Application of Teliman Holding Corp., Loft Board Order No. 2052 (Jan. 9,

    1997); Application of Halebid Corp., Loft Board Order No. 585 (Apr. 30, 1987).

    Further, pursuant to MDL ? 286(8), none of the IMD units are subject to rent regulation because they are cooperative units occupied by the owners or tenant-shareholders of the units. See, Application of Teliman Holding Corp.; Application of

    Halebid Corp.

RECOMMENDATION

    Based on the foregoing, I recommend that the New York City Loft Board thdetermine that the building located at 11-13 West 18 Street is in compliance with MDL

    ? 284(1) and is no longer an interim multiple dwelling.

    ________________________________

    Martha Cruz

    Director of Hearings

DATED: June 28, 2006

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com