Emergency Temporary Roof Work Not Included in Increase

LVT Number: 13602

Landlord applied for MCI rent increases based on the installation of new roofs at a building complex. The DRA ruled against landlord, finding that the work was done in a piecemeal fashion and wasn't completed within a reasonable time. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord brought a court case to review the DHCR's decision. The court ruled for landlord and sent the case back for calculation of the lawful rent increases. On remand, the DHCR based the rent increase on approved costs of $70,585 for installation of the roofs.

Landlord applied for MCI rent increases based on the installation of new roofs at a building complex. The DRA ruled against landlord, finding that the work was done in a piecemeal fashion and wasn't completed within a reasonable time. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord brought a court case to review the DHCR's decision. The court ruled for landlord and sent the case back for calculation of the lawful rent increases. On remand, the DHCR based the rent increase on approved costs of $70,585 for installation of the roofs. The DHCR disallowed $650 for a portion of the work that was listed as ''emergency, temporary work'' on landlord's invoice. This didn't qualify as part of the MCI.

Executive Towers at Lido: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. Nos. NG710024RP and MD710109RO (8/18/99) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

NG710024RP.pdf172.23 KB