Increase Granted for Repiping, Bathroom and Kitchen Modernization

LVT Number: #21259

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on repiping, as well as bathroom and kitchen modernization. The DRA ruled against landlord because the improvements weren't done in a workmanlike manner. Inspection confirmed the complaints of 15 tenants that the bathroom and kitchen work was defective. Landlord appealed, claiming that the tenant complaints were about conditions unconnected to the MCI work. The DHCR ruled for landlord. For example, the inspector described a missing shower door in one bathroom. But this wasn't part of the MCI and tenant hadn't complained about it.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on repiping, as well as bathroom and kitchen modernization. The DRA ruled against landlord because the improvements weren't done in a workmanlike manner. Inspection confirmed the complaints of 15 tenants that the bathroom and kitchen work was defective. Landlord appealed, claiming that the tenant complaints were about conditions unconnected to the MCI work. The DHCR ruled for landlord. For example, the inspector described a missing shower door in one bathroom. But this wasn't part of the MCI and tenant hadn't complained about it. And while there were some conditions found that were part of the MCI, landlord had largely corrected these conditions. The DHCR granted the MCI rent increases, except for one tenant whose kitchen countertop was repaired in an unworkmanlike manner.

111 East 167th Street: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dockt No. XB610004RP (4/2/09) [4-pg. doc.]

Downloads

XB610004RP.pdf134.57 KB