Building Had No Certificate of Occupancy

LVT Number: 15299

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on several improvements. The DRA ruled against landlord because it didn't submit a certificate of occupancy (C of O) for the building. Landlord appealed, claiming that the building didn't have a C of O. The DHCR ruled for landlord. The existence of a valid C of O has never been a requirement for filing an MCI application with the DHCR. Landlord's building also apparently was built before certificates of occupancy were required.

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on several improvements. The DRA ruled against landlord because it didn't submit a certificate of occupancy (C of O) for the building. Landlord appealed, claiming that the building didn't have a C of O. The DHCR ruled for landlord. The existence of a valid C of O has never been a requirement for filing an MCI application with the DHCR. Landlord's building also apparently was built before certificates of occupancy were required. And if tenants claimed that landlord didn't meet New York City Building Code standards, they must complain to the DOB or a court, not the DHCR.

238-240 7th Ave. Corp.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. OJ430075RO (8/28/01) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

OJ430075RO.pdf206.66 KB