Stairwell Water Marks Didn't Prove Roof Leak

July 31, 2009

LVT Number: #22096

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on a roof installation and facade work. The DRA ruled against landlord based on inspection that showed water marks in the building stairwell. Landlord appealed and won. Landlord claimed that the small water marks along the stairwell weren't active water leaks but old stains from a prior leak that had been repaired and needed painting. Other leak marks in a fourth-floor apartment were from a damaged interior pipe in the wall outside that apartment. The MCI work was done to prevent water intrusion from outside the building.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on a roof installation and facade work. The DRA ruled against landlord based on inspection that showed water marks in the building stairwell. Landlord appealed and won. Landlord claimed that the small water marks along the stairwell weren't active water leaks but old stains from a prior leak that had been repaired and needed painting. Other leak marks in a fourth-floor apartment were from a damaged interior pipe in the wall outside that apartment. The MCI work was done to prevent water intrusion from outside the building. The DHCR agreed with landlord. The DHCR's inspection report didn't indicate that there were active leaks in the stairwell. And there was no inspection report finding about the fourth-floor apartment. The case was sent back to the DRA for calculation of MCI rent hikes.

12 Hempstead Avenue: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. WG710003RO (5/27/09) [2-pg. doc.]

Topics

More like this