Roof Installation Not Defective

LVT Number: 16784

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on roof and facade work. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that landlord's work was defective. The DHCR ruled against tenants. Tenants claimed that there was a lack of insulation, inadequate slope, and faulty copper cladding in the roof installation. But landlord's engineer submitted a report stating that while there was a change in the type of roof installed by the contractor, there was no prior insulation in the roof and that insulation couldn't be installed because there was a low threshold at the penthouse door.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on roof and facade work. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that landlord's work was defective. The DHCR ruled against tenants. Tenants claimed that there was a lack of insulation, inadequate slope, and faulty copper cladding in the roof installation. But landlord's engineer submitted a report stating that while there was a change in the type of roof installed by the contractor, there was no prior insulation in the roof and that insulation couldn't be installed because there was a low threshold at the penthouse door. The report stated that the slope of the roof was also limited by the same penthouse condition. The report also stated that the copper cladding defect was corrected. The DHCR found no need for any further investigation into tenants' claims.

134 W. 58th St. Assn.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. QG430092RT (8/28/03) [4-pg. doc.]

Downloads

QG430092RT.pdf223.46 KB