Nonhazardous Violations Don't Bar MCI Rent Hike

April 1, 2003

LVT Number: 16447

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a boiler/burner. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenant appealed, claiming that there were hazardous conditions and violations in her apartment. The DHCR ruled against tenant. Tenant didn't claim that there was any problem with the new boiler. There also was no evidence of any immediately hazardous violations at the building. The nonhazardous violation in tenant's apartment didn't bar the MCI rent hike. Tenant also had filed a complaint of reduced services at her apartment, which the DRA dismissed.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a boiler/burner. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenant appealed, claiming that there were hazardous conditions and violations in her apartment. The DHCR ruled against tenant. Tenant didn't claim that there was any problem with the new boiler. There also was no evidence of any immediately hazardous violations at the building. The nonhazardous violation in tenant's apartment didn't bar the MCI rent hike. Tenant also had filed a complaint of reduced services at her apartment, which the DRA dismissed.

Caltagirone: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. PB210009RT (2/4/03) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

PB210009RT.pdf93.57 KB

Topics

More like this