Application Was Complete

August 31, 2005

LVT Number: 18308

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a new roof and facade restoration. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that landlord's application was incomplete. The DHCR ruled against tenants. Landlord fully documented the cost of the improvements with cancelled checks and a contract for the work. And landlord wasn't required to submit a detailed cost breakdown, because landlord and its contractor signed a contract that included all costs as a lump sum. Contrary to tenants' claim, landlord didn't receive J-51 tax benefits for the work done.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a new roof and facade restoration. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that landlord's application was incomplete. The DHCR ruled against tenants. Landlord fully documented the cost of the improvements with cancelled checks and a contract for the work. And landlord wasn't required to submit a detailed cost breakdown, because landlord and its contractor signed a contract that included all costs as a lump sum. Contrary to tenants' claim, landlord didn't receive J-51 tax benefits for the work done. And there was no proof that any payment for the work came from the cooperative building's reserve fund.

754-756 Brady Ave.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. TD610073RT (7/20/05) [4-pg. doc.]

Downloads

TD610073RT.pdf250.66 KB

Topics

More like this