Application Misrepresented Facts

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of windows, masonry, intercom, retaining wall, and hollow metal doors. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that landlord misrepresented the facts. Tenants said that only the intercom and windows benefited all tenants. Tenants argued that landlord used the MCI application to pass on to tenants the cost of work done to remodel Apartment B as a duplex and to create an apartment entrance into the basement from the street. They said the retaining wall installed by landlord was only done to support new construction of one apartment. They also said this apartment wasn't the super's apartment, which landlord claimed it was. The DHCR ruled for tenants and revoked the entire MCI rent hike. Landlord refused to provide access for inspection of Apartment B, or to let the agency determine if the super lived in the building. So the DHCR determined that landlord misrepresented the true nature of the work performed.

Various Tenants of 366 East 55th St.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. Nos. PL410037RT & QG410095RT (5/24/04) [8-pg. doc.]