Cost of Lintel and Masonry Work Disallowed

February 1, 2003

LVT Number: 16391

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on a number of improvements. The DRA ruled for landlord in part but disallowed any rent hike for lintel and masonry work. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord claimed that the work was done in connection with roof installation and parapet restoration. But the lintel replacement wasn't limited to the top-floor apartments. So it didn't qualify as being done in connection with the parapet. Similarly, the masonry costs weren't limited to the section of the exterior walls that were between the top-floor windows and the roof.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on a number of improvements. The DRA ruled for landlord in part but disallowed any rent hike for lintel and masonry work. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord claimed that the work was done in connection with roof installation and parapet restoration. But the lintel replacement wasn't limited to the top-floor apartments. So it didn't qualify as being done in connection with the parapet. Similarly, the masonry costs weren't limited to the section of the exterior walls that were between the top-floor windows and the roof.

3301-3315-3323 Nostrand Ave.: DHCR Admin. Rev. Dckt. Nos. KK210191RT & KK210023RO (12/3/02) [4-pg. doc.]

Downloads

KK210191RT.pdf250.54 KB

Topics

More like this