No Rent Hike for Poor Quality Roof Installation and Window Sills
LVT Number: #20245
(Decision submitted by David Hershey-Webb of the Manhattan law firm of Himmelstein McConnell Gribben Donoghue & Joseph, attorneys for the tenants.)Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on exterior restoration, roof installation, and window sill installation. The DHCR ruled for landlord in part, but disallowed any increase for the roof installation or window sills. Landlord and tenants both appealed, claiming that the DHCR’s decision was unreasonable. The court ruled against both sides. Landlord replaced the roof above the top-floor apartments but didn’t replace a lower roof over the lobby/vestibule area until a year later, after it filed the MCI application. The DHCR reasonably considered the two portions of the roof to constitute one installation that was done in a piecemeal manner. In addition, three of the four top-floor apartments had leaks, so the roof installation wasn’t performed in a workmanlike manner and didn’t qualify for an MCI rent hike. The DHCR also reasonably denied any increase for the window sills, because landlord made no showing as to how the money for the window sills was reallocated after it determined that window sill replacement wasn’t needed. The DHCR also ruled against tenants, who challenged the portion of the MCI application granted for pointing and window caulking. Landlord showed that that work was performed in a workmanlike manner.
B-U Realty Corp. v DHCR: Index No. 104630/07 (2/19/08) (Sup. Ct. NY; Friedman, J) [7-pg. doc.]
|B-U Realty 3001046302007001SCIV.pdf||274.22 KB|