Landlord Wasn't Given Chance to Correct Conditions Cited in Rent Reduction Order

LVT Number: 15633

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a new intercom and entrance doors. The DRA ruled against landlord because of outstanding building-wide rent reduction orders. Landlord appealed. Landlord had bought the building in 1999 and claimed that it wasn't aware of the other orders. The DHCR ruled for landlord. One rent reduction order was for defective elevator service. But a later DHCR order found that elevator service was being maintained. Another rent reduction order was for a defective entrance door. Landlord had replaced that door as part of the MCI.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a new intercom and entrance doors. The DRA ruled against landlord because of outstanding building-wide rent reduction orders. Landlord appealed. Landlord had bought the building in 1999 and claimed that it wasn't aware of the other orders. The DHCR ruled for landlord. One rent reduction order was for defective elevator service. But a later DHCR order found that elevator service was being maintained. Another rent reduction order was for a defective entrance door. Landlord had replaced that door as part of the MCI. Since landlord hadn't been given a chance to correct conditions in the rent reduction orders, and since the DHCR's own records showed these conditions had been corrected, landlord could collect the MCI increases for the work done.

660 Realty Co. LLC: DHCR Admin. Rev. Dckt. No. PI410066RO (1/22/02) [4-pg. doc.]

Downloads

PI410066RO.pdf221.29 KB