Landlord Proved Cost of Elevator Upgrading

LVT Number: 13627

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on a number of improvements. The DRA ruled for landlord in part, but disallowed some of the cost of elevator upgrading. Landlord appealed. Landlord had omitted one check for $13,000 from its original submission to the DRA. Landlord had responded to the DRA's request to submit the missing check, but the DRA had issued its order before getting the missing documentation of that part of the cost of the elevator upgrading. The DHCR ruled for landlord.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on a number of improvements. The DRA ruled for landlord in part, but disallowed some of the cost of elevator upgrading. Landlord appealed. Landlord had omitted one check for $13,000 from its original submission to the DRA. Landlord had responded to the DRA's request to submit the missing check, but the DRA had issued its order before getting the missing documentation of that part of the cost of the elevator upgrading. The DHCR ruled for landlord. Landlord may not have gotten enough notice from the DRA to submit the missing information by the time the DRA issued its order. In the circumstances, the missing check could be accepted on appeal. The MCI rent hike was increased to reflect the additional cost for elevator upgrading.

Samson Mgmt. Co.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. Nos. JH610239RO, JJ610015RT, and JJ610124RT (9/22/99) [4-pg. doc.]

Downloads

JH610239RO.pdf251.3 KB