Insufficient Proof of Waterproofing/Painting Work

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes for pointing and waterproofing work. The DRA and DHCR denied landlord's application because landlord didn't submit adequate proof of the work done. Landlord appealed, and the court sent the case back to the DHCR for further consideration of the issue of whether landlord had gotten adequate notice requesting the added proof. After reviewing its files, the DHCR again ruled against landlord. Landlord hadn't submitted the required contractor's statement, even though the DRA had requested it. Landlord had submitted only a statement from the contractor stating that all pointing and waterproofing work was done on all sections of the building specified in landlord's contract. The statement didn't indicate that the building was inspected prior to the work or that the work was needed based on such inspection. Landlord had also submitted a separate architect's statement---without letterhead or other identification---confirming that contractor had done all necessary pointing and waterproofing. But the architect didn't perform any of the work, so this statement didn't prove anything. Landlord also didn't submit a detailed diagram indicating the location and extent of the work done.

Gerritsen Avenue Associates: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. Nos. HF 230007RP (FI 230115-RO) (10/12/93) [4-page document]