Resurfacing of Back Courtyard Only Didn't Qualify as MCI

LVT Number: #32756

Landlord applied to the DHCR for MCI rent hikes based on installation of a newly resurfaced courtyard and steps behind the building. The DRA ruled against landlord, who appealed and lost. RSC Section 2522.4 defined MCI requirements for courtyards, driveways, and walkways to include "resurfacing of entire original area within the property lines of the premises." The previous installation must have exhausted its useful life, been completely removed, and been entirely resurfaced with concrete, and tenants must have access to the installation.

Landlord applied to the DHCR for MCI rent hikes based on installation of a newly resurfaced courtyard and steps behind the building. The DRA ruled against landlord, who appealed and lost. RSC Section 2522.4 defined MCI requirements for courtyards, driveways, and walkways to include "resurfacing of entire original area within the property lines of the premises." The previous installation must have exhausted its useful life, been completely removed, and been entirely resurfaced with concrete, and tenants must have access to the installation. But landlord had resurfaced only the courtyard in the back of the building. Landlord didn't replace concrete at the front of the building, or on the sides of the building. So, landlord didn't resurface all the original courtyard, driveway, and walkway areas within the property line of the premises. The work therefore didn't qualify as an MCI. 

Mact Realty LLC: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. JS230042RO (7/28/23)[3-pg. document]

Downloads

32756.pdf348.37 KB