Asbestos Removal Done in Connection with Installation of New Heating System

LVT Number: 14504

(Decision submitted by Jeffrey Turkel of the Manhattan law firm of Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on a number of improvements. These included installation of a new boiler/burner and asbestos removal done in connection with that installation. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, objecting to any increase being granted for the asbestos removal. They claimed that they weren't notified that this was part of landlord's application. The DHCR ruled against tenants.

(Decision submitted by Jeffrey Turkel of the Manhattan law firm of Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on a number of improvements. These included installation of a new boiler/burner and asbestos removal done in connection with that installation. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, objecting to any increase being granted for the asbestos removal. They claimed that they weren't notified that this was part of landlord's application. The DHCR ruled against tenants. Landlord wasn't required to list the asbestos removal in its summary page of the MCI application, since it was done as part of the boiler/burner installation, which was listed and which all tenants received. Landlord fully disclosed the asbestos removal in the full MCI application, which tenants had access to while the application was pending.

Hilonowitz: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. FD230207RT (10/12/00) [4-pg. doc.]

Downloads

FD230207RT.pdf280.05 KB