Hazardous Lead Paint Violation Bars MCI Rent Hike

LVT Number: #24457

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on a building-wide improvement. The DRA ruled against landlord because there was a hazardous lead-based paint violation on file with HPD. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord claimed that the violation had been cured before the MCI order was issued. But landlord didn't submit any proof that the violation had been removed from HPD's database. The fact that landlord may have been attempting to have the violation removed wasn't sufficient.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on a building-wide improvement. The DRA ruled against landlord because there was a hazardous lead-based paint violation on file with HPD. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord claimed that the violation had been cured before the MCI order was issued. But landlord didn't submit any proof that the violation had been removed from HPD's database. The fact that landlord may have been attempting to have the violation removed wasn't sufficient. Landlord acknowledged that, at the time the DRA's order was issued, not all of the lead paint violations had been removed from HPD's database.

38 Fort Washington Avenue: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. ZC430019RO (9/21/12) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

ZC430019RO.pdf118.69 KB