Increase Granted for Pointing and Waterproofing

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on pointing and waterproofing. The DRA ruled for landlord. Three tenants appealed, claiming that there was no super at the building; that a roof installation for which landlord got a prior MCI rent hike was defective and caused leaks; that landlord already got an MCI rent hike for pointing/waterproofing; and that the rent hike would cause tenants economic hardship. The DHCR ruled against tenants. Landlord wasn't required to have a super at the building as long as tenant complaints were addressed quickly. There were no pending service complaints from building tenants either before or after the DRA approved the MCI rent hike. Tenants' other claims weren't raised before the DRA, so they couldn't be raised for the first time on appeal.

Reyes et al: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. Nos. TI930001RT, TI930006RT & TI930027RT (3/16/06) [3-pg. doc.]