Landlord Gets MCI Rent Increase for Facade Restoration

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on facade restoration at its building. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed and lost. Tenants raised a number of claims that the DHCR found were groundless. They claimed that the facade restoration didn't meet the DHCR's useful life requirement, that the claimed project cost was inflated, that the installation didn't benefit all building tenants, that there was a conflict of interest between landlord and its scaffolding contractor, and the scaffolding costs were excessive because the work took six years to complete.

The DHCR noted that, since there was no prior MCI increase for facade restoration at this building, the useful life requirement didn't apply. And the work met DHCR requirements that all exposed sides of the building needing facade restoration work were improved. Landlord's documentation of the work showed that it was completed during a two-year period, not six years. And the DRA received statements from both landlord and the company involved that there was no relationship between landlord and the scaffolding company. 

Chesler: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. FP410015RT (2/7/20) [2-pg. doc.]