Pointing Work Not Comprehensive

LVT Number: 16124

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes for pointing and waterproofing. The DRA ruled against landlord because the installation wasn't done in a workmanlike manner. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord claimed that more than 95 percent of the building was pointed and that any leakage problem affected only two tenants and had been corrected. But an inspection showed that pointing hadn't been done at all necessary areas. So the work didn't qualify as an MCI.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes for pointing and waterproofing. The DRA ruled against landlord because the installation wasn't done in a workmanlike manner. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord claimed that more than 95 percent of the building was pointed and that any leakage problem affected only two tenants and had been corrected. But an inspection showed that pointing hadn't been done at all necessary areas. So the work didn't qualify as an MCI.

J.R.R. Realty Co.: DHCR Admin. Rev. Dckt. No. HL130204RO (9/11/02) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

HL130204RO.pdf166.16 KB