Landlord Didn't Use Reserve Fund Money to Pay for New Windows

LVT Number: 17098

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of new windows. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that no MCI rent hike was allowed because the MCI money was taken from the cooperative building reserve fund. The DHCR ruled for tenants and revoked the rent hike. Landlord appealed. The court sent the case back to the DHCR for further consideration. The DHCR then ruled for landlord.

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of new windows. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that no MCI rent hike was allowed because the MCI money was taken from the cooperative building reserve fund. The DHCR ruled for tenants and revoked the rent hike. Landlord appealed. The court sent the case back to the DHCR for further consideration. The DHCR then ruled for landlord. The work was completed in 1989, the cooperative plan was declared effective in 1991, and the conversion completed in 1992. Because the MCI installation was completed before the plan was declared effective and before transfer of title, and because the work wasn't paid for out of the reserve fund, landlord was entitled to MCI rent hikes. And any amount the sponsor took from the reserve fund as a credit was reimbursed.

Various Tenants of 43-25 43rd St.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. RD130004RP (12/30/03) [4-pg. doc.]

Downloads

RD130004RP.pdf217.17 KB