DHCR Properly Inspected Apartment Walls

LVT Number: #20555

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on pointing and waterproofing. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that the work was done poorly and on a piecemeal basis. They had submitted an engineer's report in support of their claim to the DRA. They questioned the results of the DHCR's inspection. The DHCR ruled against tenants. Landlord considered tenant's report and ordered its own inspection. The DHCR inspector properly inspected interior apartment walls for water seepage, rather than the exterior facade, in determining that the work was done properly.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on pointing and waterproofing. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that the work was done poorly and on a piecemeal basis. They had submitted an engineer's report in support of their claim to the DRA. They questioned the results of the DHCR's inspection. The DHCR ruled against tenants. Landlord considered tenant's report and ordered its own inspection. The DHCR inspector properly inspected interior apartment walls for water seepage, rather than the exterior facade, in determining that the work was done properly.

151 East 26th Street: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. TG430088RT (4/3/08) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

TG430088RT.pdf285.58 KB