§2520.11(e) which allows a landlord to perform a "gut renovation" of 75% of the building
and have the building considered new construction thereby removing the building from rent
regulation. In its Memorandum of Law, petitioner referred to the numerous" violations issued
for respondent's apartment and for the building. In addition, petitioner alleged that there were
violations issued by NYC Department of Buildings. However, no proof any violations was
offered at trial. Further, Mr. Williams admitted that there was no order to vacate the premises
issued by any city agency for [*3]the subject building.
Respondent asserts that petitioner does not have a cause of action because there are
no grounds for this proceeding under the lease or the Rent Stabilization Code. The language in
the lease provisions cited by petitioner does not address relocation. Further, respondent citing
Neighborhood Partnership H.D.F.C., Inc. v. Cousins, Index no. 103563/04, and
Quisqueya v. Reynoso, 2001 WL 156880, maintains that without a vacate order,
petitioner cannot compel respondent to relocate under these circumstances.
Rent Stabilization Code §2524.3 (a) provides that a proceeding to recover
possession of a rent stabilized apartment may be commenced without the approval of DHCR on
the ground that the tenant violated a substantial obligation of her tenancy. In the instant matter,
petitioner alleges that respondent failed to comply with the obligations set forth in paragraphs 8
& 11 of the lease. The term of lease agreement between the parties, admitted into evidence as
Exhibit 4, expired on February 14, 2007. There is no other lease agreement between the parties,
and there is no dispute that respondent is a rent stabilized tenant. Respondent's rights under the