Sidewalk Bridge Not Erected in Connection with MCI

LVT Number: 16378

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on exterior renovations. The DRA ruled for landlord but disallowed any rent hike for the cost of a sidewalk bridge that landlord claimed was installed in connection with the MCI work. Landlord appealed and lost. The DHCR ruled against landlord. Landlord installed the sidewalk bridge nine months before starting the MCI work. The bridge was put up to protect pedestrians while landlord was making emergency building facade repairs. So the bridge wasn't erected in connection with the MCI.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on exterior renovations. The DRA ruled for landlord but disallowed any rent hike for the cost of a sidewalk bridge that landlord claimed was installed in connection with the MCI work. Landlord appealed and lost. The DHCR ruled against landlord. Landlord installed the sidewalk bridge nine months before starting the MCI work. The bridge was put up to protect pedestrians while landlord was making emergency building facade repairs. So the bridge wasn't erected in connection with the MCI.

Estate of Sol Goldman: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. QG430029RO (1/15/03) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

QG430029RO.pdf241.92 KB