Defective Windows Installed

January 1, 1995

LVT Number: 9366

Facts: Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes, based on the installation of new windows. The DRA granted landlord's application, and tenant appealed. Tenant argued that the work shouldn't qualify as an MCI because the windows were defective. Landlord had previously won a case against the window contractor for installing the defective windows. The DHCR revoked the DRA's order because the judgment against the contractor showed that the windows were defective. Landlord appealed, claiming that the DHCR could only revoke the MCI rent hike for the tenant who appealed itnot for the whole building.

Facts: Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes, based on the installation of new windows. The DRA granted landlord's application, and tenant appealed. Tenant argued that the work shouldn't qualify as an MCI because the windows were defective. Landlord had previously won a case against the window contractor for installing the defective windows. The DHCR revoked the DRA's order because the judgment against the contractor showed that the windows were defective. Landlord appealed, claiming that the DHCR could only revoke the MCI rent hike for the tenant who appealed itnot for the whole building. Court: Landlord loses. The rent hike had been granted for defective building-wide improvements, so it was proper for the DHCR to revoke the rent hike for all rent-stabilized tenants. It doesn't matter how many tenants appealed landlord's MCI application.

N&L Realty Corp. v. DHCR: NYLJ, p. 31, col. 5 (12/14/94) (Sup. Ct. Queens; Milano, J)

Topics

More like this