New Terrazzo Lobby Floor Doesn't Qualify

LVT Number: 15368

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a new lobby door and new terrazzo lobby floor. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that the new floor didn't qualify as an MCI. Landlord argued that it was done in connection with the new lobby door. The DHCR ruled for tenants. The lobby floor by itself didn't qualify as an MCI. And even though it was done at the same time as the door, it wasn't related to the door replacement.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a new lobby door and new terrazzo lobby floor. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that the new floor didn't qualify as an MCI. Landlord argued that it was done in connection with the new lobby door. The DHCR ruled for tenants. The lobby floor by itself didn't qualify as an MCI. And even though it was done at the same time as the door, it wasn't related to the door replacement.

Tenants of 340 E. 66th St.: DHCR Admin. Rev. Dckt. No. KI430018RT (9/20/01) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

KI430018RT.pdf178.8 KB