MCI Increase Properly Granted for Stuyvesant Town Elevator Upgrade

Landlord of Stuyvesant and Peter Cooper Village applied for MCI rent hikes for an upgrade of two elevators. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that the useful life of the replaced elevators hadn’t expired, that the mirrors in the elevator cabs had been defectively installed, that the DHCR should have inspected the elevators in response to tenants’ complaints, and that landlord’s costs were duplicated. The DHCR ruled against tenants, who then filed an Article 78 court appeal. The court sent the case back to the DHCR for reconsideration.

The DHCR again ruled against tenants. There was no prior DHCR order granting MCI rent increases for elevator upgrades at the buildings. So the useful life exception to MCI rent increases didn’t apply. There was no reason that the DHCR should have inspected the elevator mirrors since tenants didn’t raise this issue before the DRA, and DOB had inspected and signed off on the elevator upgrade. Tenants submitted no proof that the elevator mirrors were improperly installed. Tenants could file a complaint for reduction in services if they believed conditions warranted it. There also was no duplication in landlord’s submitted costs. One contractor delivered the elevator cabs and another installed them.

Various Tenants of 321 Avenue C: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. DP410008RP (7/22/15) [3-pg. doc.]