Cosmetic Work to Modernize Vestibule Didn't Qualify as MCI

LVT Number: #28564

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on elevator upgrading, a new elevator cab, new entrance and vestibule doors, parking lot asphalt, and a parking lot sub-base. The DRA ruled for landlord in part but denied any rent increase for the parking lot sub-base and disallowed some expenses related to the new entrance and vestibule doors. Landlord appealed and lost. The new tiling, aluminum framing, granite finishing, and front-entrance canopy additions were ineligible cosmetic improvements performed to modernize the vestibule area.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on elevator upgrading, a new elevator cab, new entrance and vestibule doors, parking lot asphalt, and a parking lot sub-base. The DRA ruled for landlord in part but denied any rent increase for the parking lot sub-base and disallowed some expenses related to the new entrance and vestibule doors. Landlord appealed and lost. The new tiling, aluminum framing, granite finishing, and front-entrance canopy additions were ineligible cosmetic improvements performed to modernize the vestibule area. It was longstanding DHCR policy that lobby or vestibule renovations consisting of cosmetic work were considered ordinary repairs and maintenance, not MCIs. Landlord also failed to prove the cost of the parking lot sub-base.

87-87 Hillside Park LLC: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. DU110034RO (6/28/18) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

DU110034RO.pdf1.1 MB