Roof Coating Didn't Qualify as MCI

LVT Number: #26694

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on pointing and waterproofing and a roof installation. The roof work consisted of application of spray polyurethane foam (SPF) onto the pre-existing roof surface, followed by the application of two coats of SCM3400 silicone roof coating on top of the SPF.  The DRA disallowed the cost of the roof work from the otherwise approved MCI. Landlord appealed and lost. These materials aren’t listed in DHCR Policy Statement 91-2 as minimally acceptable for the roof installation to qualify as an MCI.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on pointing and waterproofing and a roof installation. The roof work consisted of application of spray polyurethane foam (SPF) onto the pre-existing roof surface, followed by the application of two coats of SCM3400 silicone roof coating on top of the SPF.  The DRA disallowed the cost of the roof work from the otherwise approved MCI. Landlord appealed and lost. These materials aren’t listed in DHCR Policy Statement 91-2 as minimally acceptable for the roof installation to qualify as an MCI. Although landlord claimed that the materials it used had a greater useful life and were of superior quality to the minimally allowed materials listed as acceptable by the DHCR, the only proof of this that landlord submitted was a letter prepared by the manufacturer. This was insufficient.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cerumidy Realty Inc.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. ZD230021RO (10/29/15) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

ZD230021RO.pdf588.62 KB