Tenant-Caused Violations Don't Bar MCI Rent Hike

July 31, 2000

LVT Number: 14299

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on pointing, waterproofing, and installation of a new roof. The DRA ruled for landlord, and tenants appealed. They claimed that there were immediately hazardous violations at the building. Under DHCR Policy Statement 90-8, this barred the granting of an MCI rent increase. The DHCR ruled for tenants only in part. Tenants had caused most of the immediately hazardous violations. So this was no bar to the MCI rent hikes. But there was water seepage in one apartment from the roof and walls.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on pointing, waterproofing, and installation of a new roof. The DRA ruled for landlord, and tenants appealed. They claimed that there were immediately hazardous violations at the building. Under DHCR Policy Statement 90-8, this barred the granting of an MCI rent increase. The DHCR ruled for tenants only in part. Tenants had caused most of the immediately hazardous violations. So this was no bar to the MCI rent hikes. But there was water seepage in one apartment from the roof and walls. So landlord couldn't collect an MCI rent increase from the tenant of this apartment.

Various Tenants of 3300 Netherland Ave.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. Nos. GD610018RT and GD630035RT (6/19/00) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

GD610018RT.pdf181.18 KB

Topics

More like this