Landlord Didn't Disclose Relationship with Contractor

LVT Number: #22121

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a new roof, front doors, and intercom. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming fraud. They said that landlord failed to disclose its relationship with the contractor who did the MCI work. The DHCR ruled for tenants and revoked the MCI rent hikes based on landlord's failure to disclose a less than arm's-length relationship with its contractor. In its application, landlord stated that it had no relationship with its contractor.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a new roof, front doors, and intercom. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming fraud. They said that landlord failed to disclose its relationship with the contractor who did the MCI work. The DHCR ruled for tenants and revoked the MCI rent hikes based on landlord's failure to disclose a less than arm's-length relationship with its contractor. In its application, landlord stated that it had no relationship with its contractor. But tenants submitted New York State Department of State printouts showing that the contractor and landlord shared the same address for service of legal papers. Also, in a 2005 community newspaper, it was reported that the executive officer of landlord’s company spoke on behalf of the contractor. And landlord didn’t deny tenants ‘ claims.

29-06 38th Avenue: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. TA110039RT (6/4/09) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

TA110039RT.pdf76.75 KB