Landlord's Cosmetic Work Unrelated to MCI

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes for hallway/lobby work, related architectural services, and related construction overseer services. Landlord filed a second MCI application based on facade repointing and lintel replacement. The DRA denied landlord's first application but granted landlord's second application for the facade and lintel work. Landlord appealed, claiming that all of the work was required to bring the 50-year-old building with no prior capital expenditures into code compliance. Landlord claimed that the lobby work was needed for the operation, preservation, and maintenance of the building. The DHCR ruled against landlord. The work in question was merely decorative or cosmetic, and wasn't directly related to the facade and lintel work. Tenants also claimed that the front entrance doors weren't refurbished and had no new hardware, that the new keyless security system didn't work at times, that there was no actively operated surveillance system as landlord claimed, and that the work generally was of inferior quality.

Boulder Apartments, LLC: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. WD910011RO (9/18/08) [3-pg. doc.]