No MCI Rent Hike for Leaking Roof

LVT Number: #22014

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a new roof, pointing, and related work. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that the work was defective or didn't qualify as an MCI. The DHCR ruled for tenants in part. The DHCR inspection showed that, even after the DRA ruled on the application, there was leak damage to the top-floor ceiling and peeling paint and stains near two top-floor apartments. So the increase for the roof work was disallowed.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a new roof, pointing, and related work. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that the work was defective or didn't qualify as an MCI. The DHCR ruled for tenants in part. The DHCR inspection showed that, even after the DRA ruled on the application, there was leak damage to the top-floor ceiling and peeling paint and stains near two top-floor apartments. So the increase for the roof work was disallowed. But work done on the parapet, lintels, and sills was needed and done in connection with exterior pointing work that qualified as an MCI.

141 W. 16th Street: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket Nos. OG430057RO, OG430121RT (4/22/09)[6-pg. doc.]

Downloads

OG430057RO.pdf219.6 KB