Landlord Gets Increase for New Windows

LVT Number: 8364

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker Kraus & Bruh, attorneys for the landlord) Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes, based on the installation of new windows. The DRA ruled for landlord, and tenant appealed. Tenant claimed that the windows had been replaced twice since 1980 and that tenants weren't given the chance to respond to landlord's MCI application. The DHCR ruled against tenant. Landlord certified that all tenants had been served with copies of the MCI application. In addition, a copy was available at the DHCR's office for tenant review.

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker Kraus & Bruh, attorneys for the landlord) Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes, based on the installation of new windows. The DRA ruled for landlord, and tenant appealed. Tenant claimed that the windows had been replaced twice since 1980 and that tenants weren't given the chance to respond to landlord's MCI application. The DHCR ruled against tenant. Landlord certified that all tenants had been served with copies of the MCI application. In addition, a copy was available at the DHCR's office for tenant review. One tenant had responded to landlord's original application, stating that the work was well done. This supported landlord's claim that notice was served. Since he had the opportunity to complain when he got notice of landlord's MCI application, tenant couldn't raise issues about the windows for the first time in his PAR.

Rodriguez: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. DJ 210394-RT (9/29/93) [2-page document]

Downloads

DJ210394-RT.pdf117.06 KB