Concrete Resurfacing and Handicap Ramps

February 1, 1999

LVT Number: 12957

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on concrete resurfacing and handicap ramps. The DRA ruled for landlord, and tenants appealed. Among other things, they claimed that the work was done near the building's garage and didn't benefit tenants, that the handicap ramp wasn't resurfaced, and that the two ramps installed by landlord were required by law. The DHCR ruled against tenants. Landlord's resurfacing of the entire courtyard and walkways within the property line qualified as an MCI.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on concrete resurfacing and handicap ramps. The DRA ruled for landlord, and tenants appealed. Among other things, they claimed that the work was done near the building's garage and didn't benefit tenants, that the handicap ramp wasn't resurfaced, and that the two ramps installed by landlord were required by law. The DHCR ruled against tenants. Landlord's resurfacing of the entire courtyard and walkways within the property line qualified as an MCI. Landlord's construction of handicap ramps as required by law didn't bar entitlement to MCI rent increases for this improvement.

Edgarton Hall Tenants Assn.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. LL110194RT (12/9/98) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

LL110194RT.pdf158.41 KB

Topics

More like this