Courtyard Concrete Replacement Done in Piecemeal Fashion

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the replacement of concrete in the building's courtyard and walkways. The DRA ruled against landlord because the work was done on a piecemeal basis and some of it was done outside the property lines. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord claimed that the work was done as a unified project, in phases. Landlord's first contractor went out of business before completing the job, causing an interruption in the work. But the original contract was only for the resurfacing of the courtyard in the back of the building. Landlord's diagram showed that the entire original area within the property lines wasn't completely resurfaced. The additional work in the front of the building wasn't contracted for until landlord's application for the back work was denied. Landlord couldn't claim mere delay since the back courtyard work was completed per contract in November 2006, while work on the walkways didn't start until June 2007 under a second contract. There was no indication of a unified plan for the work now claimed to be one project.

90-10 149 Street: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. YL110012RP (11/3/11) [6-pg. doc.]