DHCR Correctly Granted MCI Rent Hikes for Pointing and Waterproofing

October 31, 2009

LVT Number: #22230

Landlord applied to the DHCR for MCI rent hikes. The DHCR ruled for landlord, and tenant appealed. Tenant, in an Article 78 petition, claimed that the DHCR's decision was arbitrary and unreasonable. The court and appeals court ruled against tenant. The DHCR's decision was rational. Landlord's MCI rent increase application was supported by a contract for the work to be performed, canceled checks, and the contractor's statements verifying the costs and scope of the pointing and waterproofing performed.

Landlord applied to the DHCR for MCI rent hikes. The DHCR ruled for landlord, and tenant appealed. Tenant, in an Article 78 petition, claimed that the DHCR's decision was arbitrary and unreasonable. The court and appeals court ruled against tenant. The DHCR's decision was rational. Landlord's MCI rent increase application was supported by a contract for the work to be performed, canceled checks, and the contractor's statements verifying the costs and scope of the pointing and waterproofing performed.

Helgason v. DHCR: NYLJ, 10/15/09, p. 39, col. 5 (App. Div. 1 Dept.; Saxe, JP, Nardelli, Buckley, Acosta, Freedman, JJ)

Topics

More like this