Partial Cost of Sidewalk Bridge Included

LVT Number: 18367

Landlord applied for an MCI rent hike for facade restoration. Landlord included the cost of a sidewalk bridge as part of its claimed costs. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that landlord installed the sidewalk bridge in January 1999, after decorative metal fell from the building. Work on the MCIs didn't begin until 2000. The DHCR ruled for tenants in part. Landlord was entitled to compensation for the cost of putting up and taking down the sidewalk bridge. But the bridge was up for two years, and the MCI installation only took place during a four-month period.

Landlord applied for an MCI rent hike for facade restoration. Landlord included the cost of a sidewalk bridge as part of its claimed costs. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that landlord installed the sidewalk bridge in January 1999, after decorative metal fell from the building. Work on the MCIs didn't begin until 2000. The DHCR ruled for tenants in part. Landlord was entitled to compensation for the cost of putting up and taking down the sidewalk bridge. But the bridge was up for two years, and the MCI installation only took place during a four-month period. So landlord was entitled to the monthly rental cost of the sidewalk bridge for those four months.

160 Front St.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. Nos. QE410013RO & QD410129RT (8/22/05) [6-pg. doc.]

Downloads

QE410013RO.pdf322.83 KB