Cost of Heat Timer Included in MCI Increase for Burner Installation

Landlord applied to the DHCR for MCI rent hikes based on a number of improvements. The DRA ruled for landlord based on elevator upgrading, related elevator cab work, electrical upgrade, concrete work, pointing and waterproofing, and burner and heat timer installation.

Tenants appealed and lost. Tenants claimed that: (a) there were HPD violations at the building when the MCI application was granted; (b) the elevator upgrade, electrical rewiring, and burner were maintenance repair work required by deteriorated conditions caused by landlord's years of neglect; (c) the pointing and waterproofing was done only on three of the four exposed sides of the building; (d) the heat timer didn't benefit tenants; and (d) the building still had inadequate heat and hot water supply.

But the Class A and B violations tenants referred to weren't immediately hazardous violations. Any "C" violations at the building had been corrected. It was also well-established policy that elevator upgrading, electrical rewiring, and new burner installations were defined as MCIs and landlord's work qualified. While a heat timer, in and of itself, didn't qualify as an MCI, Rent Stabilization Code Section 2522.4(a)(2)(ii) permits a rent increase for other necessary work done in conjunction with a qualifying MCI. The heat timer was installed in connection with and as necessary work for completion of the MCI burner installation. Tenants' claim that the heat timer would be used by landlord only to control the use of heat in apartments was speculative and wasn't a grounds to deny an MCI increase for this item. Under DHCR policy, landlord did pointing and waterproofing work "as necessary," and the work therefore qualified. 

Various Tenants of 45 Falmouth Street: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. EN210017RT (10/7/20) [3-pg. doc.]