Landlord Gets MCI Rent Hike for New Mailboxes

LVT Number: #25229

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on a number of improvements, including pointing, waterproofing, new mailboxes and entrance doors, security cameras, and intercom. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenant appealed. She claimed that, under a 1988 agreement, landlord installed mailboxes and said it wouldn't apply for an MCI increase. As agreed, landlord didn't apply for any MCI increase for the prior mailboxes installed at that time. And the new mailboxes were relocated from an outer vestibule to an inner vestibule behind locked doors. The DHCR ruled against tenant.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on a number of improvements, including pointing, waterproofing, new mailboxes and entrance doors, security cameras, and intercom. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenant appealed. She claimed that, under a 1988 agreement, landlord installed mailboxes and said it wouldn't apply for an MCI increase. As agreed, landlord didn't apply for any MCI increase for the prior mailboxes installed at that time. And the new mailboxes were relocated from an outer vestibule to an inner vestibule behind locked doors. The DHCR ruled against tenant.

451 7th Avenue: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. XH210001RT (10/18/13) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

XH210001RT.pdf77.58 KB