Claimed Defects in Repiping Don't Bar MCI Rent Hike

April 30, 2009

LVT Number: #21213

(Decision submitted by Karen Schwartz-Sidrane of the Hewlett law firm of Sidrane & Schwartz-Sidrane, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on building-wide gas and water repiping. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that the piping work was defective. The DHCR ruled against tenants. The claimed defects, such as mismatched tiling and protruding pipe ends, could be corrected through ordinary repairs and maintenance. These conditions didn't call for disallowing the repiping costs.

(Decision submitted by Karen Schwartz-Sidrane of the Hewlett law firm of Sidrane & Schwartz-Sidrane, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on building-wide gas and water repiping. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that the piping work was defective. The DHCR ruled against tenants. The claimed defects, such as mismatched tiling and protruding pipe ends, could be corrected through ordinary repairs and maintenance. These conditions didn't call for disallowing the repiping costs. If warranted, tenants could file an application for rent reduction based on decreased services.

66 West 9th Street Tenants Association: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. PG410086RT (4/28/09) [6-pg. doc.]

Downloads

Scan-009_0.pdf596.05 KB

Topics

More like this