Architect's Statement No Substitute for Contractor Statement

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on pointing and waterproofing, debris removal, rewiring, electric service, and scaffolding. The DRA ruled for landlord, but the DHCR reversed and revoked the increase. Landlord then appealed to the court, claiming that the DHCR's decision was unreasonable. The court sent the case back to the DHCR for further review. The DHCR again ruled against landlord. For the pointing and waterproofing to qualify as MCIs, landlord must show that they were done in a comprehensive way as needed on exposed sides of the building. Landlords must submit a contractor's statement certifying that the building was inspected before the work was done. Landlord didn't submit the requested contractor's statement to the DHCR and gave no explanation as to why not. Instead, landlord submitted a statement by an architect who wasn't involved in the project. The architect stated that she examined the work and the bills and statements upon which payment was based. She found that the work matched the bills. But the post-work statement by the architect wasn't relevant to the MCI application requirements. Landlord failed to submit the necessary documentation.

28-34 Columbia Place: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. RK230010RP (5/13/08) [4-pg. doc.]