The owner of an interim multiple dwelling sought an order terminating a 1992 finding of tenant harassment issued by the Loft Board against a different owner. In 2005, the Loft Board had denied the applicant’s prior request to terminate the harassment finding on the grounds that he failed to prove compliance with fire and safety requirements. ALJ Astrid B. Gloade found no evidence that tenants had lived in the building for a decade and no evidence the applicant had engaged in harassment of tenants. She also found the applicant had established compliance with fire and safety requirements and otherwise satisfied the legal requirements to end the finding of harassment. Therefore, ALJ Gloade recommended that the 1992 finding be terminated. Matter of Alonzo (in PDF), OATH Index No. 998/13 (Feb. 15, 2013).
A group of over thirty tenants had sought a finding that their residence was an interim multiple dwelling and that they were the protected occupants. After a new state law passed in late January, 2013, the tenants requested an indefinite adjournment and, in the alternative, moved to withdraw their applications without prejudice because the new legislation materially affected their case. The building owner, who opposed their application for coverage, also opposed the adjournment and the motion to withdraw without prejudice. ALJ Kevin F. Casey found the legislation affected a key point of contention in the matter, the subject of a planned multiday hearing that would involve considerable expense for both sides. He denied request for an indefinite adjournment but granted the motion to withdraw without prejudice so that the applicants could determine how they should proceed. Matter of 135-139 Plymouth St., Brooklyn (in PDF), OATH Index Nos. 1871-1896/12, 1898-1901/12, 1053-1054/13, 1409/13 (Feb. 5, 2013).
The owner of a building defaulted on a mortgage and the building was placed into receivership. The receiver challenged a planned sale of improvements in an apartment between an outgoing tenant and his subtenant, which is permitted under the Loft Board rules when the parties comply with the rules’ disclosure and notice requirements. The subtenant argued the receiver had no standing to contest the sale because he was not an owner. ALJ Faye Lewis found that while the Loft Board rule does not define the term “owner,” it must be read in harmony with the Multiple Dwelling Law, whose definition of “owner” includes a receiver. Matter of Greig (in PDF), OATH Index No. 217/13, mem. dec. (Feb. 13, 2013).