MCI Rent Hike Upheld, But Architect Fee Reduced

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on roof and facade work, sidewalk scaffolding, and architect's fees. The DHCR ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that the architect fee wasn't needed, that the roof work was defective, that the useful life of the old roof hadn't expired, and that there were hazardous building violations that barred any rent increase. The court sent the case back to the DHCR for reconsideration. The DHCR again ruled for landlord. The prior MCI rent hike for the roof was granted in 1982, so there was no useful-life expiration issue. The photographs tenants submitted to show water collection on the roof were taken on a rainy day. No tenants had filed any service complaints relating to leaks, and tenants submitted no other proof of any leaks. There had been a Class "C" violation in place at the building since 1998, but tenants didn't raise this issue before the DRA. Therefore, DHCR couldn't consider it now. The DHCR did reduce the amount of the architect's fee considered to calculate the rent increase. The DRA had approved an architect's fee equal to 15 percent of the cost of the work. But landlord's contract for the work stated that the architect's fee would be 10 percent of the cost of the work.

134 West 58th Street: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. SJ430001RP (3/7/08) [5-pg. doc.]