Loading
Real Estate
7 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Real Estate, Architecture, Fire Protection, Building Code, Human Factors
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
New York State
A dispute over the use and configuration of a New York City Class A multiple dwelling led Terrilee 97th Street LLC to challenge $5,200 in civil penalties imposed by the New York City Environmental Control Board, insofar as those penalties were challenged in the Article 78 proceeding. The property was governed by a 1964 certificate of occupancy that limited each of its seven floors to 28 people. City enforcement actions addressed the building’s use for transient stays of fewer than 30 days and the direction in which several lobby and stair exit doors opened. For the exit-door citation, the city relied on a Building Code provision that required certain doors serving 50 or more occupants to swing in the direction of egress.
Terrilee challenged the Environmental Control Board’s findings through a CPLR Article 78 proceeding. The exit-door dispute turned on whether occupants from different floors could be treated together when applying the 50-person threshold in the Building Code. On January 31, 2017, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department rejected the approach used to support the citation, dismissed the exit-door violation, and vacated its $2,000 penalty. The court left the remaining findings concerning transient occupancy and zoning in place, and Terrilee’s later motion for reargument or, alternatively, leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals was denied on September 19, 2017.
The property operated under a 1964 certificate of occupancy for a seven-story Class A multiple dwelling. It permitted no more than 28 occupants on each floor. That stated limit later became part of the Building Code analysis concerning the direction in which the lobby and stair exit doors opened. The certificate also contained information about the building’s permitted use that was considered during the dispute over transient occupancy.
Changes to New York’s Multiple Dwelling Law took effect on May 1, 2011. Under the amended provisions applied in the case, the units in Terrilee’s Class A multiple dwelling could not be used for occupancy periods shorter than 30 days. Terrilee relied on earlier records and the property’s prior use when contesting the city’s enforcement position. The First Department later concluded that those earlier circumstances did not permit the short-term occupancy addressed by the amended law.
The New York City Environmental Control Board issued a July 25, 2013 determination assessing $5,200 in civil penalties, insofar as challenged in the later Article 78 proceeding, under the Administrative Code, Building Code, and Zoning Resolution. Notice of Violation 349-803-06K alleged that the building’s front lobby exit doors and doors leading to an exit stair opened against the direction of egress travel. The city relied on Building Code § 1008.1.2.2, which required certain doors to swing in the direction of egress when serving an occupant load of 50 or more people. Separate violations concerned transient occupancy and use of the property contrary to applicable occupancy and zoning requirements.
Terrilee commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding under Index No. 101551/13 to seek judicial review of the Environmental Control Board’s determination. Its challenge covered both the short-term occupancy findings and the Building Code citation involving the exit doors. The parties disagreed over how the 50-person occupant-load threshold should be applied when an exit system served several stories of the building. The court later described the Department of Buildings’ theory as appearing to combine the occupancies of several upper floors when determining whether the threshold had been reached.
The Supreme Court, New York County, transferred the proceeding to the Appellate Division, First Department, by an order entered July 15, 2014. The appellate court reviewed the Environmental Control Board’s findings under the statutes, zoning provisions, and Building Code sections raised in the proceeding. The exit-door claim required the court to read the door-swing provision together with the code section governing occupant load when exits serve more than one floor.
The First Department concluded that the Environmental Control Board had not established the alleged exit-door violation. Building Code § 1008.1.2.2 applied the disputed door-swing requirement to certain spaces with an occupant load of 50 or more people, while the building’s certificate of occupancy permitted only 28 people on each floor. The court described the Department of Buildings’ theory as appearing to add the occupancies of several upper floors together when determining whether the 50-person threshold had been reached. The court instead relied on Building Code § 1004.4, which stated that when exits serve multiple floors, the occupant load of each floor is considered individually when calculating the required exit capacity at that level.
The Environmental Control Board had also conceded that doors leading to the exit stairs on the upper floors were not required to swing in the direction of egress because each story contained fewer than 50 occupants. The First Department applied the same floor-by-floor analysis to the lobby doors. It also rejected the Board’s alternative position that the property’s transient Group R-1 occupancy classification independently required the doors to swing outward under the cited provision. The court determined that one of the conditions stated in the main door-swing rule still had to be satisfied.
After rejecting the occupant-load theory used to support the citation, the First Department dismissed Notice of Violation 349-803-06K and vacated the related $2,000 penalty. The ruling did not eliminate all of the penalties challenged by Terrilee. The court confirmed the remaining portions of the Environmental Control Board’s determination, including findings concerning transient occupancy and use of the building contrary to applicable occupancy and zoning requirements. Terrilee therefore obtained relief on the exit-door citation while the other challenged violations remained in effect.
Terrilee later moved for reargument or, alternatively, for leave to appeal the January ruling to the New York Court of Appeals. The motion concerned the same Article 78 proceeding and January 31, 2017 decision. On September 19, 2017, the First Department denied the motion. The earlier ruling therefore remained in place.
Court:
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department
Case Name:
Matter of Terrilee 97th St. LLC v. New York City Environmental Control Board
New York City imposed penalties involving transient occupancy and the direction of exit doors in a seven-story Class A multiple dwelling.
The exit-door dispute centered on whether occupants from multiple floors could be combined to meet the Building Code’s 50-person threshold.
The First Department held that each floor’s occupant load should be considered individually for the calculation at issue.
The court dismissed the exit-door violation and vacated its $2,000 penalty while leaving the remaining occupancy and zoning findings in place.
Terrilee’s later request for reargument or leave to appeal was denied in September 2017.
Architectural Design
Architectural Engineering
Construction Building Codes
Doors
Emergency Evacuations
Fire Safety Science
Safety Compliance
Stair Accidents
A dispute over the use and configuration of a New York City Class A multiple dwelling led Terrilee 97th Street LLC to challenge $5,200 in civil penalties imposed by the New York City Environmental Control Board, insofar as those penalties were challenged in the Article 78 proceeding. The property was governed by a 1964 certificate of occupancy that limited each of its seven floors to 28 people. City enforcement actions addressed the building’s use for transient stays of fewer than 30 days and the direction in which several lobby and stair exit doors opened. For the exit-door citation, the city relied on a Building Code provision that required certain doors serving 50 or more occupants to swing in the direction of egress.
Terrilee challenged the Environmental Control Board’s findings through a CPLR Article 78 proceeding. The exit-door dispute turned on whether occupants from different floors could be treated together when applying the 50-person threshold in the Building Code. On January 31, 2017, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department rejected the approach used to support the citation, dismissed the exit-door violation, and vacated its $2,000 penalty. The court left the remaining findings concerning transient occupancy and zoning in place, and Terrilee’s later motion for reargument or, alternatively, leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals was denied on September 19, 2017.
The property operated under a 1964 certificate of occupancy for a seven-story Class A multiple dwelling. It permitted no more than 28 occupants on each floor. That stated limit later became part of the Building Code analysis concerning the direction in which the lobby and stair exit doors opened. The certificate also contained information about the building’s permitted use that was considered during the dispute over transient occupancy.
Changes to New York’s Multiple Dwelling Law took effect on May 1, 2011. Under the amended provisions applied in the case, the units in Terrilee’s Class A multiple dwelling could not be used for occupancy periods shorter than 30 days. Terrilee relied on earlier records and the property’s prior use when contesting the city’s enforcement position. The First Department later concluded that those earlier circumstances did not permit the short-term occupancy addressed by the amended law.
The New York City Environmental Control Board issued a July 25, 2013 determination assessing $5,200 in civil penalties, insofar as challenged in the later Article 78 proceeding, under the Administrative Code, Building Code, and Zoning Resolution. Notice of Violation 349-803-06K alleged that the building’s front lobby exit doors and doors leading to an exit stair opened against the direction of egress travel. The city relied on Building Code § 1008.1.2.2, which required certain doors to swing in the direction of egress when serving an occupant load of 50 or more people. Separate violations concerned transient occupancy and use of the property contrary to applicable occupancy and zoning requirements.
Terrilee commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding under Index No. 101551/13 to seek judicial review of the Environmental Control Board’s determination. Its challenge covered both the short-term occupancy findings and the Building Code citation involving the exit doors. The parties disagreed over how the 50-person occupant-load threshold should be applied when an exit system served several stories of the building. The court later described the Department of Buildings’ theory as appearing to combine the occupancies of several upper floors when determining whether the threshold had been reached.
The Supreme Court, New York County, transferred the proceeding to the Appellate Division, First Department, by an order entered July 15, 2014. The appellate court reviewed the Environmental Control Board’s findings under the statutes, zoning provisions, and Building Code sections raised in the proceeding. The exit-door claim required the court to read the door-swing provision together with the code section governing occupant load when exits serve more than one floor.
The First Department concluded that the Environmental Control Board had not established the alleged exit-door violation. Building Code § 1008.1.2.2 applied the disputed door-swing requirement to certain spaces with an occupant load of 50 or more people, while the building’s certificate of occupancy permitted only 28 people on each floor. The court described the Department of Buildings’ theory as appearing to add the occupancies of several upper floors together when determining whether the 50-person threshold had been reached. The court instead relied on Building Code § 1004.4, which stated that when exits serve multiple floors, the occupant load of each floor is considered individually when calculating the required exit capacity at that level.
The Environmental Control Board had also conceded that doors leading to the exit stairs on the upper floors were not required to swing in the direction of egress because each story contained fewer than 50 occupants. The First Department applied the same floor-by-floor analysis to the lobby doors. It also rejected the Board’s alternative position that the property’s transient Group R-1 occupancy classification independently required the doors to swing outward under the cited provision. The court determined that one of the conditions stated in the main door-swing rule still had to be satisfied.
After rejecting the occupant-load theory used to support the citation, the First Department dismissed Notice of Violation 349-803-06K and vacated the related $2,000 penalty. The ruling did not eliminate all of the penalties challenged by Terrilee. The court confirmed the remaining portions of the Environmental Control Board’s determination, including findings concerning transient occupancy and use of the building contrary to applicable occupancy and zoning requirements. Terrilee therefore obtained relief on the exit-door citation while the other challenged violations remained in effect.
Terrilee later moved for reargument or, alternatively, for leave to appeal the January ruling to the New York Court of Appeals. The motion concerned the same Article 78 proceeding and January 31, 2017 decision. On September 19, 2017, the First Department denied the motion. The earlier ruling therefore remained in place.
Architecture Expert Witness
An architecture expert may examine floor plans, certificates of occupancy, stairs, doors, corridors, circulation paths, and the overall means-of-egress layout. The review may include whether the physical configuration of the building met the code provisions that applied to its occupancy and approved use.
Building Code Compliance Expert Witness
A building code compliance expert may evaluate the code edition in effect, occupancy classifications, occupant-load calculations, door-swing requirements, exit capacity, and exceptions or conditions contained in specific code sections. This analysis may require reading several provisions together rather than treating one section in isolation.
Fire Protection Engineering Expert Witness
A fire protection engineer may assess evacuation routes, stair enclosures, exit systems, door operation, occupant loads, and other fire and life-safety requirements. The analysis may also consider how a building’s occupancy classification affects the requirements governing emergency egress.
Human Factors Expert Witness
A human factors expert may examine how people move through doors, stairs, corridors, and other parts of an exit system. Depending on the dispute, the analysis may address visibility, wayfinding, door operation, congestion, and the physical demands placed on occupants during evacuation.
Verify the Governing Certificate of Occupancy Before Applying Egress Rules
Attorneys handling architecture and building code disputes should identify the certificate of occupancy that controlled the property during the period at issue. In Terrilee, the 1964 certificate set a 28-person limit for each floor, which directly affected the analysis of whether the exit-door swing requirement applied.
Read Occupant-Load and Means-of-Egress Provisions Together
A citation involving exit doors may depend on more than the physical direction in which a door opens. Counsel should examine the related architectural provisions governing occupant load, exit capacity, floor-by-floor calculations, and occupancy classification before determining whether a means-of-egress requirement is triggered.
Separate Architectural Code Issues From Broader Occupancy Claims
The Terrilee proceeding involved both transient-occupancy violations and a separate architectural egress dispute concerning lobby and stair doors. Treating each citation according to its own code language, factual record, and occupancy assumptions can help prevent unrelated building-use issues from being blended into the architectural analysis.
Test the Agency’s Method for Calculating Occupant Load
When a building contains several floors or shared exit components, attorneys should examine exactly how the enforcing agency calculated the number of occupants served by each exit. In Terrilee, the court rejected the theory used to support the citation because the applicable Building Code provision required the occupant load of each floor to be considered individually for the calculation at issue.
Develop the Record Around Architectural Layout and Code Conditions
Floor plans, exit locations, stair configurations, door-swing direction, occupancy classifications, and approved use documents can all affect a building code dispute. In cases involving more complex architectural life-safety questions, these materials may also support analysis by architects, building code experts, fire protection engineers, or human factors experts.
The Terrilee proceeding ended with different outcomes for the building’s exit-door citation and its transient-occupancy violations. The First Department concluded that the occupant-load theory used to support the door-swing citation did not satisfy the applicable Building Code provisions, and it dismissed that violation and vacated the related $2,000 penalty. The court upheld the remaining findings concerning short-term occupancy and use of the property under the applicable occupancy and zoning rules. Terrilee later sought reargument or leave to appeal, but the First Department denied the motion in September 2017, leaving the January decision in place.
What Legal and Building Code Issues Were Disputed in the Terrilee 97th Street Case?
The dispute involved short-term occupancy violations and whether the building’s lobby and stair exit doors complied with New York City egress requirements. The court also examined how occupant load should be calculated when applying the 50-person threshold for the door-swing rule.
What Was the Dispute Over the Building’s Exit Doors?
The city alleged that the front lobby exit doors and doors leading to an exit stair violated Building Code § 1008.1.2.2 because they opened against the direction of egress. That code section applied the cited door-swing requirement under specific conditions, including an occupant load of 50 or more people. The court later described the Department of Buildings’ theory as appearing to combine occupants from several upper floors when determining whether the threshold had been met.
Why Did the Court Dismiss the Exit-Door Violation?
The building’s certificate of occupancy limited each floor to 28 people. The First Department read Building Code § 1004.4 as requiring each floor’s occupant load to be considered separately for the calculation at issue. Because an individual floor did not reach the 50-person threshold relied on for the citation, the court dismissed the exit-door violation and vacated the associated penalty.
Did Terrilee Overturn All $5,200 in Challenged Penalties?
No. Terrilee succeeded only on the citation involving the exit doors. The First Department vacated the $2,000 penalty connected with that violation but confirmed the remaining portions of the Environmental Control Board’s determination that were before the court. The upheld violations concerned the property’s transient use and related occupancy and zoning restrictions.
Architecture Expert Witness
An architecture expert may examine floor plans, certificates of occupancy, stairs, doors, corridors, circulation paths, and the overall means-of-egress layout. The review may include whether the physical configuration of the building met the code provisions that applied to its occupancy and approved use.
Building Code Compliance Expert Witness
A building code compliance expert may evaluate the code edition in effect, occupancy classifications, occupant-load calculations, door-swing requirements, exit capacity, and exceptions or conditions contained in specific code sections. This analysis may require reading several provisions together rather than treating one section in isolation.
Fire Protection Engineering Expert Witness
A fire protection engineer may assess evacuation routes, stair enclosures, exit systems, door operation, occupant loads, and other fire and life-safety requirements. The analysis may also consider how a building’s occupancy classification affects the requirements governing emergency egress.
Human Factors Expert Witness
A human factors expert may examine how people move through doors, stairs, corridors, and other parts of an exit system. Depending on the dispute, the analysis may address visibility, wayfinding, door operation, congestion, and the physical demands placed on occupants during evacuation.
Verify the Governing Certificate of Occupancy Before Applying Egress Rules
Attorneys handling architecture and building code disputes should identify the certificate of occupancy that controlled the property during the period at issue. In Terrilee, the 1964 certificate set a 28-person limit for each floor, which directly affected the analysis of whether the exit-door swing requirement applied.
Read Occupant-Load and Means-of-Egress Provisions Together
A citation involving exit doors may depend on more than the physical direction in which a door opens. Counsel should examine the related architectural provisions governing occupant load, exit capacity, floor-by-floor calculations, and occupancy classification before determining whether a means-of-egress requirement is triggered.
Separate Architectural Code Issues From Broader Occupancy Claims
The Terrilee proceeding involved both transient-occupancy violations and a separate architectural egress dispute concerning lobby and stair doors. Treating each citation according to its own code language, factual record, and occupancy assumptions can help prevent unrelated building-use issues from being blended into the architectural analysis.
Test the Agency’s Method for Calculating Occupant Load
When a building contains several floors or shared exit components, attorneys should examine exactly how the enforcing agency calculated the number of occupants served by each exit. In Terrilee, the court rejected the theory used to support the citation because the applicable Building Code provision required the occupant load of each floor to be considered individually for the calculation at issue.
Develop the Record Around Architectural Layout and Code Conditions
Floor plans, exit locations, stair configurations, door-swing direction, occupancy classifications, and approved use documents can all affect a building code dispute. In cases involving more complex architectural life-safety questions, these materials may also support analysis by architects, building code experts, fire protection engineers, or human factors experts.
The Terrilee proceeding ended with different outcomes for the building’s exit-door citation and its transient-occupancy violations. The First Department concluded that the occupant-load theory used to support the door-swing citation did not satisfy the applicable Building Code provisions, and it dismissed that violation and vacated the related $2,000 penalty. The court upheld the remaining findings concerning short-term occupancy and use of the property under the applicable occupancy and zoning rules. Terrilee later sought reargument or leave to appeal, but the First Department denied the motion in September 2017, leaving the January decision in place.
What Legal and Building Code Issues Were Disputed in the Terrilee 97th Street Case?
The dispute involved short-term occupancy violations and whether the building’s lobby and stair exit doors complied with New York City egress requirements. The court also examined how occupant load should be calculated when applying the 50-person threshold for the door-swing rule.
What Was the Dispute Over the Building’s Exit Doors?
The city alleged that the front lobby exit doors and doors leading to an exit stair violated Building Code § 1008.1.2.2 because they opened against the direction of egress. That code section applied the cited door-swing requirement under specific conditions, including an occupant load of 50 or more people. The court later described the Department of Buildings’ theory as appearing to combine occupants from several upper floors when determining whether the threshold had been met.
Why Did the Court Dismiss the Exit-Door Violation?
The building’s certificate of occupancy limited each floor to 28 people. The First Department read Building Code § 1004.4 as requiring each floor’s occupant load to be considered separately for the calculation at issue. Because an individual floor did not reach the 50-person threshold relied on for the citation, the court dismissed the exit-door violation and vacated the associated penalty.
Did Terrilee Overturn All $5,200 in Challenged Penalties?
No. Terrilee succeeded only on the citation involving the exit doors. The First Department vacated the $2,000 penalty connected with that violation but confirmed the remaining portions of the Environmental Control Board’s determination that were before the court. The upheld violations concerned the property’s transient use and related occupancy and zoning restrictions.
Architectural Design
Architectural Engineering
Construction Building Codes
Doors
Emergency Evacuations
Fire Safety Science
Safety Compliance
Stair Accidents
Real Estate
Mold, +4
Real Estate
Elevator & Escalator, +4
Real Estate