Defective Roof Installation

April 1, 2006

LVT Number: 18752

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on exterior work and a roof installation. The DRA ruled for landlord, and tenants appealed. Tenants argued, as they had before the DRA, that landlord did the roof work in connection with a penthouse apartment extension. Tenants also claimed that the roof work was defective. The DHCR ruled for tenants and revoked the MCI hikes. Although landlord claimed that payment for the penthouse extension was made separately, he submitted no proof. And persistent roof leaks in one apartment showed that the roof work wasn't done properly.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on exterior work and a roof installation. The DRA ruled for landlord, and tenants appealed. Tenants argued, as they had before the DRA, that landlord did the roof work in connection with a penthouse apartment extension. Tenants also claimed that the roof work was defective. The DHCR ruled for tenants and revoked the MCI hikes. Although landlord claimed that payment for the penthouse extension was made separately, he submitted no proof. And persistent roof leaks in one apartment showed that the roof work wasn't done properly.

305 W. 72nd St.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. RI430008RP (2/10/06) [6-pg. doc.]

Downloads

RI430008RP.pdf332.07 KB

Topics

More like this