Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on exterior restoration work, including terrace work, along with consulting fees for an engineer and architect. The DHCR ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that the DHCR's decision was unreasonable because not all tenants benefited from the terrace work. The court sent the case back to the DHCR for reconsideration. Tenants now pointed out that landlord filed plans with DOB for additional exterior work in 2006. The DHCR ruled for tenants and revoked the MCI rent hike.
Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on exterior restoration work, including terrace work, along with consulting fees for an engineer and architect. The DHCR ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that the DHCR's decision was unreasonable because not all tenants benefited from the terrace work. The court sent the case back to the DHCR for reconsideration. Tenants now pointed out that landlord filed plans with DOB for additional exterior work in 2006. The DHCR ruled for tenants and revoked the MCI rent hike. It was the DHCR's policy that terrace or other related work done as part of comprehensive exterior work qualified as an MCI. But landlord's new DOB application, filed within four years of the prior work, showed that the prior exterior work wasn't comprehensive. Under Rent Stabilization Code Section 2522.4, the useful life for exterior restoration work was 25 years. Since landlord didn't perform all necessary exterior restoration work as part of the initial MCI, the MCI rent hike was revoked.
40 Park Avenue Tenants' Association: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. VE410012RP (9/16/09) [4-pg. doc.]
