Increase Granted for New Roof

LVT Number: 11791

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker Kraus & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a new roof. Two tenants complained of roof leaks and an inspection showed leaks in one top-floor apartment. The DRA ruled against landlord and disallowed any increase for the roof work. Landlord appealed, claiming that the leak damages were probably from water seepage from another apartment rather than from the roof. The DHCR ruled against landlord.

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker Kraus & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a new roof. Two tenants complained of roof leaks and an inspection showed leaks in one top-floor apartment. The DRA ruled against landlord and disallowed any increase for the roof work. Landlord appealed, claiming that the leak damages were probably from water seepage from another apartment rather than from the roof. The DHCR ruled against landlord. Landlord appealed, claiming that the DHCR's inspection was flawed because the moisture meter was used incorrectly. The court sent the case back to the DHCR for further inspection. The DHCR then ruled for landlord. Tenant didn't provide access for a second inspection, and no other top-floor tenants complained of roof leakage in response to landlord's MCI application.

Nagel: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. KD530009RP (5/19/97) [4-page document]

Downloads

KD530009RP.pdf312.91 KB