Asbestos Removed When New Boiler/Burner Installed

April 1, 1993

LVT Number: 6847

Landlord applied for MCI rent increases based on a number of improvements. The DRA granted landlord's application, and tenant appealed. Tenant claimed that asbestos removal, for which landlord got a rent increase, didn't qualify as an MCI. The DHCR denied tenant's PAR. Landlord performed the asbestos removal two months before installing a new boiler/burner. This supported landlord's claim that the asbestos removal was done in conjunction with the installation of an MCI. So, landlord was entitled to an MCI increase for the related asbestos removal work.

Landlord applied for MCI rent increases based on a number of improvements. The DRA granted landlord's application, and tenant appealed. Tenant claimed that asbestos removal, for which landlord got a rent increase, didn't qualify as an MCI. The DHCR denied tenant's PAR. Landlord performed the asbestos removal two months before installing a new boiler/burner. This supported landlord's claim that the asbestos removal was done in conjunction with the installation of an MCI. So, landlord was entitled to an MCI increase for the related asbestos removal work.

Kraft: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. GH 220068-RT (2/17/93) [3-page document]

Downloads

GH220068-RT.pdf164.09 KB

Topics

More like this