Discrepancy in Description of Roof's Square Footage Didn't Bar MCI Increase

LVT Number: #27894

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a new roof. The DRA ruled for landlord and increased tenants' rents. Tenants appealed and lost. Tenants pointed out that, in a prior MCI application, the total square footage of the roof was higher than it was stated in landlord's current MCI application. The DHCR found that this didn't matter. What mattered was whether, as claimed, the entire roof surface had been replaced. Landlord's contractor confirmed in a statement submitted with the application that the entire roof area had been recapped.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a new roof. The DRA ruled for landlord and increased tenants' rents. Tenants appealed and lost. Tenants pointed out that, in a prior MCI application, the total square footage of the roof was higher than it was stated in landlord's current MCI application. The DHCR found that this didn't matter. What mattered was whether, as claimed, the entire roof surface had been replaced. Landlord's contractor confirmed in a statement submitted with the application that the entire roof area had been recapped. DHCR inspection also confirmed that the entire roof area had been replaced.

Kerman/Stern: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. BM430018RT (6/14/17) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

BM430018RT.pdf734.23 KB