Landlord Proved Costs of Facade Work

November 15, 2013

LVT Number: #25171

Rent-stabilized tenants filed an Article 78 court appeal of a DHCR order granting landlord's application for MCI rent increases based on exterior facade work and installation of security cameras. Tenants claimed that there was insufficient proof that the work was done. The court ruled against tenants. The DHCR relied on sufficient documentation to reach its decision. Landlord submitted a contract, a contractor's affirmation that the work was completed, diagrams showing the outside perimeter of the building where the parapets were replaced, and a cost breakdown of the project.

Rent-stabilized tenants filed an Article 78 court appeal of a DHCR order granting landlord's application for MCI rent increases based on exterior facade work and installation of security cameras. Tenants claimed that there was insufficient proof that the work was done. The court ruled against tenants. The DHCR relied on sufficient documentation to reach its decision. Landlord submitted a contract, a contractor's affirmation that the work was completed, diagrams showing the outside perimeter of the building where the parapets were replaced, and a cost breakdown of the project. Tenants argued for the first time in their appeal that repair work done to the parapets in 1997 showed that their useful life hadn't expired when landlord later did MCI work. But this claim wasn't raised before the DHCR and couldn't be considered.

250 Riverside Drive Tenants Association v. DHCR: Index No. 104002/12, NYLJ No. 1202622169901 (Sup. Ct. NY; 9/16/13; Stallman, J)

Topics

More like this