Nonexistent Contractor

November 1, 2001

LVT Number: 15367

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a new roof. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, arguing that landlord's claimed contractor was nonexistent. The DHCR ruled for tenants. The contract for the work was written on a letterhead showing an address that didn't exist. There was no telephone number listed, and a letter sent to the contractor by a tenant was returned as undeliverable. The contractor corporation also wasn't found in records of the Queens County Clerk, City Department of Consumer Affairs, or Department of State.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a new roof. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, arguing that landlord's claimed contractor was nonexistent. The DHCR ruled for tenants. The contract for the work was written on a letterhead showing an address that didn't exist. There was no telephone number listed, and a letter sent to the contractor by a tenant was returned as undeliverable. The contractor corporation also wasn't found in records of the Queens County Clerk, City Department of Consumer Affairs, or Department of State. The MCI increase was revoked.

Various Tenants: DHCR Admin. Rev. Dckt. No. OL410071RT (9/19/01) [3-pg. doc.]

Topics

More like this