Piecemeal Window Installation Didn't Qualify as MCI

LVT Number: #25396

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of new windows. The DRA ruled against landlord, finding that the work was done piecemeal. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord installed eight windows between June 30 and July 20, 2007. Another 28 windows were installed between July 30, 2008, and Sept. 3, 2008. The second group of windows was installed by a different contractor than the first. And six windows in one apartment weren't included in the claimed MCI costs because they had been installed earlier by a tenant.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of new windows. The DRA ruled against landlord, finding that the work was done piecemeal. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord installed eight windows between June 30 and July 20, 2007. Another 28 windows were installed between July 30, 2008, and Sept. 3, 2008. The second group of windows was installed by a different contractor than the first. And six windows in one apartment weren't included in the claimed MCI costs because they had been installed earlier by a tenant. Landlord claimed that she wasn't able to finance the whole job at once and couldn't get the same contractor to continue the work. But landlord failed to show that it was her intent at the outset to perform a unified and consecutively timed window installation project. She also failed to supply requested details to the DRA concerning her claimed financial constraints.

18 Bedford Street: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. XF410039RO (2/7/14) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

XF410039RO.pdf205.62 KB