Partial Resurfacing Didn't Qualify as MCI

LVT Number: #21161

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on waterproofing. The DRA ruled against landlord, finding that the work was merely repair and maintenance. Landlord appealed. He claimed that the waterproofing work was needed to correct water infiltration problems that had damaged tenants' apartments. The DHCR ruled against landlord. Resurfacing of exterior building walls can be an MCI if work is done on all exposed sides of the building. But landlord only added new brickface over brick in the front of the building and back one foot on each side.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on waterproofing. The DRA ruled against landlord, finding that the work was merely repair and maintenance. Landlord appealed. He claimed that the waterproofing work was needed to correct water infiltration problems that had damaged tenants' apartments. The DHCR ruled against landlord. Resurfacing of exterior building walls can be an MCI if work is done on all exposed sides of the building. But landlord only added new brickface over brick in the front of the building and back one foot on each side. And no additional sealing work was done to the other exterior portions of the building. So the work didn't qualify as an MCI.

Masi: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. WH910023RO (1/8/09) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

WH910023RO.pdf403.31 KB