Exterior Restoration

June 30, 2006

LVT Number: 18949

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on exterior restoration work. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenant appealed, claiming that the work was done because landlord hadn't done maintenance and repair work when needed, and that some of the work was unrelated to the facade restoration. The DHCR ruled against tenant. There was no proof that the work was done because of delayed repairs or maintenance. And even if so, this didn't bar collection of MCI rent hikes. The DRA also properly granted rent hikes for all work related to the MCI that qualified.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on exterior restoration work. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenant appealed, claiming that the work was done because landlord hadn't done maintenance and repair work when needed, and that some of the work was unrelated to the facade restoration. The DHCR ruled against tenant. There was no proof that the work was done because of delayed repairs or maintenance. And even if so, this didn't bar collection of MCI rent hikes. The DRA also properly granted rent hikes for all work related to the MCI that qualified.

40 Park Ave.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. SK410053RT (12/8/05) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

SK410053RT.pdf131.32 KB

Topics

More like this