Terrace/Balcony Reconstructed

January 1, 2001

LVT Number: 14692

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on terrace/balcony reconstruction. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenant appealed, claiming that his terrace/balcony wasn't reconstructed. He claimed also that the work done consisted of filling cracks and resurfacing. The DHCR ruled against tenant. Landlord had submitted proof that terrace/balcony reconstruction was done on a building-wide basis. This work qualified as an MCI. And tenant didn't submit any proof to support his claim.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on terrace/balcony reconstruction. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenant appealed, claiming that his terrace/balcony wasn't reconstructed. He claimed also that the work done consisted of filling cracks and resurfacing. The DHCR ruled against tenant. Landlord had submitted proof that terrace/balcony reconstruction was done on a building-wide basis. This work qualified as an MCI. And tenant didn't submit any proof to support his claim.

Penta: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. NA930048RT (12/16/00) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

NA930048RT.pdf109.56 KB

Topics

More like this