Six Small Water Closet Windows Omitted from Building-Wide Window Replacement

LVT Number: #27497

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of apartment windows. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that not all windows had been replaced. The DHCR ruled for tenants and revoked the MCI increase because certain windows in the A and C lines hadn’t been replaced. Landlord then filed an Article 78 appeal, pointing out that 92 percent of the windows were replaced. The windows not replaced were unique. The DHCR agreed to reconsider the case.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of apartment windows. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that not all windows had been replaced. The DHCR ruled for tenants and revoked the MCI increase because certain windows in the A and C lines hadn’t been replaced. Landlord then filed an Article 78 appeal, pointing out that 92 percent of the windows were replaced. The windows not replaced were unique. The DHCR agreed to reconsider the case. The windows not replaced were located in water closets off what were formerly maids’ rooms, similar windows in some apartments had been replaced by vents and there were only six such windows remaining, out of a total of 386 windows building-wide. These windows were small, at less than 10 square feet each, and landlord planned to phase them out. The DHCR ruled against landlord, who filed a second Article 78 appeal, and the DHCR again agreed to reconsider. The DHCR then ruled for landlord, finding that revocation of the MCI rent increase was improper. Considering the equities, the MCI rent hike was warranted. 

 

 

 

COD LLC: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. ER430003RP (12/22/16) [2-pg. doc.]