Tenants Claim Landlord Didn't Comply with DOB Requirements for MCI Work

LVT Number: #32111

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on exterior restoration work, new windows, balcony doors, and related consulting engineer fees. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed and lost. They claimed that there were defects in the work performed and improper calculation of the building's commercial space allocation. Among other things, tenants argued that landlord didn't comply with DOB requirements and submitted forms to DOB containing incorrect information, including a statement that the building had no rent-regulated tenants.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on exterior restoration work, new windows, balcony doors, and related consulting engineer fees. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed and lost. They claimed that there were defects in the work performed and improper calculation of the building's commercial space allocation. Among other things, tenants argued that landlord didn't comply with DOB requirements and submitted forms to DOB containing incorrect information, including a statement that the building had no rent-regulated tenants. But this was outside the DHCR's scope of review. Any failure to follow DOB requirements should be brought to DOB's attention but didn't serve as a basis for the DHCR to revoke the MCI rent increase.

245 East 40th Street Archstone Tenants Association: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. EN410043RT (6/24/22)[4-pg. document]

Downloads

32111.pdf351.32 KB