No MCI Rent Hike for Defective Roof

LVT Number: #23023

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a new roof. The DRA ruled against landlord, finding that the improvement was done in an unworkmanlike manner. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord's architect found the roof to be in satisfactory condition. Landlord also claimed that there had been no roof leaks since the installation 18 months earlier, and that its contractor guaranteed the new roof for 10 years. But DHCR inspection found that there were several puddles of stagnant water on the roof. It didn't matter that the work was guaranteed.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a new roof. The DRA ruled against landlord, finding that the improvement was done in an unworkmanlike manner. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord's architect found the roof to be in satisfactory condition. Landlord also claimed that there had been no roof leaks since the installation 18 months earlier, and that its contractor guaranteed the new roof for 10 years. But DHCR inspection found that there were several puddles of stagnant water on the roof. It didn't matter that the work was guaranteed. And the statement by landlord's architect was submitted for the first time on appeal, so it couldn't be considered.

256 12th Street: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. XG230033RO (10/22/10) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

XG230033RO.pdf75.88 KB