Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)

Citation: Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
Parent Document: Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2016-12-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4334594/bartis-v-harbor-tech-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,129 chars

residential certificate of occupancy, and contained more than six units. The plaintiffs further contended that the complex did not qualify for the substantial rehabilitation exemption provided by EPTA § 5 (a) (5) because 75% of its building-wide and apartment systems had not been replaced as required by Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2520.11. To demonstrate that the complex had not been substantially renovated within the meaning of Rent Stabilization Code § 2520.11, the plaintiffs relied upon the affidavit of Brenda Bello, a registered architect who inspected the complex in 2013 along with Ari Kamo, a professional engineer. In her affidavit, Bello stated that she and Kamo had concluded, based on their inspection, that only 2 of 17 listed building-wide and individual housing accommodation systems had been rehabilitated or replaced in accordance with relevant building codes. Additional evidence submitted in support of the motion included the temporary certificate of occupancy dated January 31, 2005, and the final certificate of occupancy effective December 30, 2005. The Defendant’s Opposition and Cross Motion

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text