Resurfaced Courtyard Without Tenant Access Doesn't Qualify as MCI

LVT Number: #27676

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on courtyard resurfacing. The DRA ruled against landlord because tenants didn’t have access to the resurfaced courtyard. Landlord appealed and lost. Although landlord argued that courtyard resurfacing preserves the structural integrity of the building, it was established DHCR policy that, for a courtyard installation to qualify as an MCI, not only must the previous surface be completely removed and the entire original area within property lines of the premises be resurfaced with concrete, but tenants must have access to the installation.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on courtyard resurfacing. The DRA ruled against landlord because tenants didn’t have access to the resurfaced courtyard. Landlord appealed and lost. Although landlord argued that courtyard resurfacing preserves the structural integrity of the building, it was established DHCR policy that, for a courtyard installation to qualify as an MCI, not only must the previous surface be completely removed and the entire original area within property lines of the premises be resurfaced with concrete, but tenants must have access to the installation.

 

 

AIMCO 656 St. Nicholas LLC: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. ZH410045RO (3/21/17) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

ZH410045RO.pdf425.03 KB