IAI Contractor Was Building Super and Shared Offices with Landlord

LVT Number: #27283

Rent-stabilized tenant complained of rent overcharge. The DRA ruled for tenant, finding that landlord had collected $11,323 in overcharges. But since landlord had refunded $23,321 to tenant, there was no refund due. Tenant appealed, and the case was reopened. Tenant argued that the DRA erroneously determined that landlord had done individual apartment improvements (IAIs) costing $14,212 and that there was no willful overcharge. Tenant pointed out that the contractor who did the IAIs was also the building super and shared an office with landlord at the building.

Rent-stabilized tenant complained of rent overcharge. The DRA ruled for tenant, finding that landlord had collected $11,323 in overcharges. But since landlord had refunded $23,321 to tenant, there was no refund due. Tenant appealed, and the case was reopened. Tenant argued that the DRA erroneously determined that landlord had done individual apartment improvements (IAIs) costing $14,212 and that there was no willful overcharge. Tenant pointed out that the contractor who did the IAIs was also the building super and shared an office with landlord at the building. The address on the contractor’s invoices was the same address as the building and the contractor’s listed phone number was the same number as the building’s management company. Given the identify of interest between landlord and the contractor, the DRA should investigate the accuracy of the contractor’s invoices.

 

 

Bellew: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. EQ410070RT (9/7/16) [4-pg. doc.]

Downloads

EQ410070RT.pdf1.59 MB