Increase Granted for New Roof

April 1, 1997

LVT Number: 11359

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker Kraus & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a new roof. The DRA ruled for landlord, and tenants appealed, claiming that the roof work was necessary because of leaks. The DHCR ruled against tenants. Even if the MCI was required due to prior neglect of the building, landlord wasn't barred from getting rent increases if the work was performed and the installation replaced an item whose useful life had expired.

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker Kraus & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a new roof. The DRA ruled for landlord, and tenants appealed, claiming that the roof work was necessary because of leaks. The DHCR ruled against tenants. Even if the MCI was required due to prior neglect of the building, landlord wasn't barred from getting rent increases if the work was performed and the installation replaced an item whose useful life had expired.

Yoffie: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. HJ410155RT (11/19/96) [2-page document]

Downloads

HJ410155RT.pdf114.16 KB

Topics

More like this