Roof Work Was Piecemeal

LVT Number: 17860

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on a new roof installation. The DRA ruled against landlord, finding that the work was piecemeal. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord submitted two contractor's invoices that were dated 11 months apart. The first one was for work done to the rear half of the roof, the second for work done to the front half of the roof. Clearly, landlord didn't intend to do a unified and consecutively timed project.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on a new roof installation. The DRA ruled against landlord, finding that the work was piecemeal. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord submitted two contractor's invoices that were dated 11 months apart. The first one was for work done to the rear half of the roof, the second for work done to the front half of the roof. Clearly, landlord didn't intend to do a unified and consecutively timed project.

79 Sullivan St.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. SH430059RO (10/14/04) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

SH430059RO.pdf101.6 KB