Increase Granted for New Roof

LVT Number: 16388

(Decision submitted by Beth Cohen of the Manhattan law firm of Rosenberg & Estis, PC, attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a new roof. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that there was insufficient proof that the work was done or that it was completed within two years before filing the MCI application. The DHCR ruled against tenants.

(Decision submitted by Beth Cohen of the Manhattan law firm of Rosenberg & Estis, PC, attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a new roof. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that there was insufficient proof that the work was done or that it was completed within two years before filing the MCI application. The DHCR ruled against tenants. Landlord submitted proper proof of payment for a new roof, landlord's contractor certified the completion date of the installation, and no permit from an NYC Asbestos Control Program was required, as was claimed by tenants. Tenants submitted absolutely no proof to support their claim.

720 Greenwich St. Tenants Assn./Dimartino: DHCR Admin. Rev. Dckt. No. PD410077RT (1/15/03) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

PD410077RT.pdf137.22 KB