Courtyard Concrete Installation Costs Disallowed

LVT Number: #29993

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on exterior restoration and the sidewalk shed needed while the work was performed. The DRA ruled for landlord but disallowed costs for pipe insulation that didn't qualify for MCI coverage. Tenants appealed and won in part. The DHCR found no merit to tenants' claim that the work performed was incomplete. Exterior restoration, including pointing and waterproofing, was performed as needed on exposed sides of the building. Landlord made any needed repairs to a few apartments claiming water infiltration.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on exterior restoration and the sidewalk shed needed while the work was performed. The DRA ruled for landlord but disallowed costs for pipe insulation that didn't qualify for MCI coverage. Tenants appealed and won in part. The DHCR found no merit to tenants' claim that the work performed was incomplete. Exterior restoration, including pointing and waterproofing, was performed as needed on exposed sides of the building. Landlord made any needed repairs to a few apartments claiming water infiltration. The DRA also deducted $3,000 from the approved MCI cost that was taken from the building's condominium association reserve fund. But the DHCR granted tenants' request to disallow the cost of the courtyard concrete installation since the work wasn't fully documented by landlord and, in any event, tenants didn't have access to the courtyard. The courtyard concrete installation also wasn't related to any of the other MCI work performed. The monthly per-room MCI rent increase was reduced from $13.70 to $11.97.

314 West 100th Street Tenants Assoc.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. CU430042RT (1/10/19) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

CU430042RT.pdf339.66 KB