Landlord Gets Increase for New Windows and Pointing Work

LVT Number: 9516

Facts: Landlord applied for an MCI rent hike for installing 900 new apartment windows building-wide, and/or pointing and waterproofing the exterior walls of the building. The new windows were installed in all but three apartments. Two apartments had already gotten new windows, and one tenant had refused access. The work cost over $220,000. The DHCR approved most of the costs, disallowing $16,700 of the waterproofing and pointing costs because the work had been done in the previous year. Tenants appealed. Court: Tenants lose. The windows and pointing work qualified as MCIs.

Facts: Landlord applied for an MCI rent hike for installing 900 new apartment windows building-wide, and/or pointing and waterproofing the exterior walls of the building. The new windows were installed in all but three apartments. Two apartments had already gotten new windows, and one tenant had refused access. The work cost over $220,000. The DHCR approved most of the costs, disallowing $16,700 of the waterproofing and pointing costs because the work had been done in the previous year. Tenants appealed. Court: Tenants lose. The windows and pointing work qualified as MCIs. The work was done on a building-wide basis. Prior tenant consent wasn't required. Nor was a hearing required; tenants got notice of landlord's application and had been given a chance to object. Landlord had installed the windows in 110 apartments; the fact that three apartments didn't get windows as part of the MCI didn't prevent this from being a ''building-wide'' improvement.

Friedman v. DHCR: NYLJ, p. 33, col. 6 (2/22/95) (Sup. Ct. Queens; Lonschein, J)