necessitate a gut renovation. Although, petitioner introduced its plans and the scope of the work
into evidence, there was no expert testimony as to why the extensive renovation was required or
that substantial violations have been issued against the building or dangerous conditions
detrimental to life or [*4]health exist in the building. Petitioner's
witnesses described conditions in need of repair. However, their testimony was insufficient to
establish that a renovation requiring relocation was required.
Further, petitioner provided no legal support for its position that respondent, as a
rent regulated tenant, is required to relocate to permit renovations. Petitioner cites no law that
affords the remedy that petitioner seeks. Rent Stabilization Code §2524.5(3) specifically
authorizes relocation of tenants to allow the rehabilitation of a building in need of repair under
the PHFL, the Housing New York Program Act , or the U..S. Housing Act of 1937. Under this
section of the Rent Stabilization Code the landlord is required to seek permission from DHCR
and meet certain conditions. Petitioner meets none of these criteria. In addition, unless
specifically authorized by statute, petitioner cannot maintain a proceeding to evict a tenant
without such permission( see Neighborhood Partnership H.D.F.C., Inc. v. Cousins, Index
no. 103563/04, and Quisqueya v. Reynoso, 2001 WL 156880).
Moreover, the lease terms upon which petitioner relies provide no support for its
claim that respondent violated a substantial obligation of her tenancy. Nothing in the lease
provisions upon which petitioner relies obligates respondent to relocate.
Accordingly, respondent' s motion to dismiss the petition is hereby granted.
This constitutes the decision and order of this court.