Four Tenants Exempted from MCI Increase for Facade Restoration

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on building exterior restoration, with related consulting work, and terrace/roof replacement. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed and won, in part. Tenants claimed that: (a) the exterior restoration was piecemeal; (b) the facade work wasn't building-wide; (c) the DRA didn't address ongoing leaks; (d) the terrace work didn't benefit all tenants; and (e) the cost of the work was excessive.

The DHCR permanently exempted four tenants from the MCI increase because the DHCR's inspector found signs of water seepage and leak damage in their apartments. Landlord also failed to submit proof that repairs in these units were completed. So, these tenants didn't benefit from the MCI work. And, since only a small number of the building's tenants were affected, the MCI increase revocation didn't apply to the whole building. As to the terrace, the DHCR noted that the work was performed in connection with exterior restoration to maintain the building in a water-tight condition and protect its structural integrity. Therefore, the terrace work benefited all building tenants.

Cranlyn Tenants Association: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. BV230031RT (11/7/19) [4-pg. doc.]