Landlord Didn't Prove Labor Costs

LVT Number: 17611

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on a number of improvements, including new boiler/burner, roof, intercom, and pointing/waterproofing. The DRA ruled for landlord in part, granting rent hikes for materials but denying any rent hike for labor costs. Landlord had acted as its own contractor. Landlord appealed, claiming that its costs should have been approved because they were comparable to those an outside contractor would have charged. The DHCR ruled against landlord. Landlord submitted no proof of its actual labor costs.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on a number of improvements, including new boiler/burner, roof, intercom, and pointing/waterproofing. The DRA ruled for landlord in part, granting rent hikes for materials but denying any rent hike for labor costs. Landlord had acted as its own contractor. Landlord appealed, claiming that its costs should have been approved because they were comparable to those an outside contractor would have charged. The DHCR ruled against landlord. Landlord submitted no proof of its actual labor costs. So the DHCR couldn't consider the cost in deciding the MCI rent hike. The market value or reasonable cost of labor is irrelevant to the DHCR's determination.

Frank & Walter Eberhart, LP: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. QJ420073RO (8/10/04) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

QJ420073RO.pdf193.84 KB