Increase Granted for New Windows

January 1, 1998

LVT Number: 12010

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on installation of new windows. The DHCR ruled for landlord, and tenants appealed. They claimed the DHCR's decision was unreasonable. The court and appeals court ruled against tenants. Landlord replaced 14,000 windows at a cost of $2.5 million. There was no proof of any irregularity in the financing of the MCI. Tenants also claimed that landlord, as sponsor of the cooperative building's unsold shares, didn't invest any of his own money in the MCI.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on installation of new windows. The DHCR ruled for landlord, and tenants appealed. They claimed the DHCR's decision was unreasonable. The court and appeals court ruled against tenants. Landlord replaced 14,000 windows at a cost of $2.5 million. There was no proof of any irregularity in the financing of the MCI. Tenants also claimed that landlord, as sponsor of the cooperative building's unsold shares, didn't invest any of his own money in the MCI. But records showed that the funds for the MCI were from a loan made to the cooperative association in refinancing the mortgage on the building. So tenants' claims were groundless.

Sutherland v. DHCR: NYLJ, p. 31, col. 3 (12/12/97) (App. Div. 2 Dept.; O'Brien, JP, Ritter, Thompson, Joy, JJ)

Topics

More like this