Landlord Didn't Prove Cost of Installation

May 31, 1994

LVT Number: 8818

Landlord applied for an MCI rent hike. The DRA found that landlord didn't properly substantiate the installation costs, and landlord appealed. The DHCR upheld the DRA's ruling. Landlord had originally submitted evidence that the contractor was paid in cash, but on appeal he submitted copies of cancelled checks---one of which post-dated the MCI application. Also, the checks didn't specify the address where the work was done. Because landlord's evidence was inconsistent, and possibly fabricated, landlord wasn't entitled to an MCI rent hike.

Landlord applied for an MCI rent hike. The DRA found that landlord didn't properly substantiate the installation costs, and landlord appealed. The DHCR upheld the DRA's ruling. Landlord had originally submitted evidence that the contractor was paid in cash, but on appeal he submitted copies of cancelled checks---one of which post-dated the MCI application. Also, the checks didn't specify the address where the work was done. Because landlord's evidence was inconsistent, and possibly fabricated, landlord wasn't entitled to an MCI rent hike.

Borysewicz: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. CA 230350-RO (3/10/94) [2-page document]

Downloads

CA230350-RO.pdf89.64 KB

Topics

More like this