Water Leaks Not Caused by MCIs

LVT Number: 10478

(Decision submitted by Robert H. Berman of the Manhattan law firm of Borah, Golstein, Altschuler & Schwartz, P.C., attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on pointing and waterproofing. The DRA ruled for landlord, granting the rent increases. Tenants appealed, claiming that the pointing and waterproofing weren't done properly. They said there were floods and leaks in the walls and ceilings of various apartments. The DHCR ruled against tenants.

(Decision submitted by Robert H. Berman of the Manhattan law firm of Borah, Golstein, Altschuler & Schwartz, P.C., attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on pointing and waterproofing. The DRA ruled for landlord, granting the rent increases. Tenants appealed, claiming that the pointing and waterproofing weren't done properly. They said there were floods and leaks in the walls and ceilings of various apartments. The DHCR ruled against tenants. Landlord showed, through repair records, that certain apartments needed repairs due to leaks caused by factors other than the waterproofing and pointing. Tenants submitted no contradictory proof.

Various Tenants of 200 E. 62nd St.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. Nos. HA410135RT, HA410011RT (2/22/96) [4-page document]

Downloads

HA410135RT.pdf272.08 KB