Landlord Proved Parapet Installation Was Complete
LVT Number: #31934
Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on installation of a parapet. The DRA ruled for landlord and granted rent increases for the parapet work and installation of a sidewalk bridge during the work.
Tenants appealed and lost. Tenants claimed the work was incomplete, of poor quality, and that there were current immediately hazardous HPD violations against the building not fixed by landlord. Tenants' engineer reported that there were deficiencies in the parapet installation. But the DHCR noted that this report didn't create a rebuttable presumption that the installation was incomplete or ineffective. And landlord sufficiently refuted tenants' report with its MCI submissions, statement from its contractor, and affidavit from an independent registered architect. Landlord's submissions also showed that the parapet wall was replaced around the entire perimeter of the building. And, at the time the MCI order was issued, DHCR policy stated that an MCI application wouldn't be granted if, on the application filing date, there were any pending current "C" violations. Here, the violations were issued after the date the MCI application was submitted. So they had no impact on landlord's MCI application.
425 West 205th Street Tenants' Association: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. GR410044RT (3/8/22)[4-pg. document]