Elevator Upgrade Qualifies

February 1, 2005

LVT Number: 17909

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on elevator upgrading. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that the elevator work was needed because of landlord's neglect, that the work was repair and maintenance work, and that the elevators were still defective. The DHCR ruled against tenants. Landlord submitted sufficient proof that an MCI was done, including contracts, canceled checks, contractors' statements, and a municipal certificate of completion. The fact that the work may have been required because of prior neglect of the building didn't bar the MCI rent hike.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on elevator upgrading. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that the elevator work was needed because of landlord's neglect, that the work was repair and maintenance work, and that the elevators were still defective. The DHCR ruled against tenants. Landlord submitted sufficient proof that an MCI was done, including contracts, canceled checks, contractors' statements, and a municipal certificate of completion. The fact that the work may have been required because of prior neglect of the building didn't bar the MCI rent hike. The fact that landlord obtained the municipal sign off showed that the elevator wasn't defective after upgrading. If there were current elevator problems, tenants could file a complaint claiming a decrease in required services.

Various Tenants of 75 S. Broadway: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. Nos. RE930004RT et al. (12/23/04) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

RE930004RT.pdf312.35 KB

Topics

More like this