6 Percent of Apartments Had Water Seepage After Facade Work

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on pointing and waterproofing. Tenants appealed, claiming the work had been done in a piecemeal fashion and in an unworkmanlike manner. The DHCR ruled against tenants. Tenants appealed, and the court sent the case back to the DHCR for reconsideration. The DHCR ruled for tenants and revoked the MCI increase. Landlord then appealed, claiming that the DHCR had misinterpreted the court's earlier remand. The court again sent the case back to the DHCR for reconsideration.

The DHCR then ruled for landlord. The work was not done piecemeal. The work for which the MCI increase was granted included only pointing and waterproofing that began in 1999. Any earlier facade work wasn't a factor. There was no proof of any unexplained, unusually long cessation and later recommencement of the MCI work and no showing that it was done in separate and distinct phases. The work qualified as an MCI. The DHCR also inspected all of the 263 apartments and found water seepage in only 17 units. Since only 6 percent of the apartments were affected, the work qualified as an MCI provided that tenants with water seepage were exempted from the rent increase.

444 East 82nd Street: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. BR410001RP (12/13/13) [2-pg. doc.]