Commercial Tenant Didn't Benefit from Oil Tank Installation

August 31, 2005

LVT Number: 18311

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on an oil tank installation. The DRA ruled for landlord, and landlord appealed. The DRA had disallowed a portion of the cost from the rent hikes, based on the portion of use of the MCI by commercial tenant. But landlord showed that commercial tenant didn't use the oil tank. Commercial tenant had a separate HVAC system for heat and air conditioning. The DHCR ruled for landlord. Since commercial tenant didn't benefit from the oil tank installation, no portion of the cost is deducted from tenant rent hikes.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on an oil tank installation. The DRA ruled for landlord, and landlord appealed. The DRA had disallowed a portion of the cost from the rent hikes, based on the portion of use of the MCI by commercial tenant. But landlord showed that commercial tenant didn't use the oil tank. Commercial tenant had a separate HVAC system for heat and air conditioning. The DHCR ruled for landlord. Since commercial tenant didn't benefit from the oil tank installation, no portion of the cost is deducted from tenant rent hikes.

4119 Barnes Ave.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. TC610118RO (7/12/05) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

TC610118RO.pdf135.49 KB

Topics

More like this