Tenant Elevator Complaints Not Grounds to Revoke MCI Rent Hike

LVT Number: #27918

The DRA granted landlord's application for MCI rent hikes based on elevator upgrading. Tenants appealed and lost. Tenants claimed that the installation wasn't adequately performed. They said that the new elevator wasn't in good working order and broke down regularly, tended to jump and make scraping sounds at certain floors, was used at times as a freight elevator, and was smaller and slower than the prior elevator. DOB issued a violation against the new elevator after the MCI work was completed.

The DRA granted landlord's application for MCI rent hikes based on elevator upgrading. Tenants appealed and lost. Tenants claimed that the installation wasn't adequately performed. They said that the new elevator wasn't in good working order and broke down regularly, tended to jump and make scraping sounds at certain floors, was used at times as a freight elevator, and was smaller and slower than the prior elevator. DOB issued a violation against the new elevator after the MCI work was completed. Tenants also claimed that the controllers replaced as part of the elevator upgrade were installed in 2005 and hadn't yet outlived their useful life. But landlord submitted sufficient proof that the installation met MCI requirements and landlord had received the necessary government sign-offs for the work. The DOB violation issued in July 2014 for slight scraping on up and down travel was cured by landlord and removed from DOB's database in August 2014. The new elevator's speed, size, and use as a freight elevator weren't grounds for revoking the MCI increase.

DeMott: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. DV430031RT (7/7/17) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

DV430031RT.pdf506.86 KB