Masonry Repair and Roof Replacement Were Piecemeal

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on masonry repair and roof replacement. The DRA ruled against landlord, finding that the application was untimely and that the work had been done in a piecemeal fashion. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord had submitted to the DRA two contracts for the work done. One was dated Sept. 27, 1999, and described the scope of work to include masonry and replacement of the roofs on the penthouse and bulkheads. The second contract, dated July 31, 2000, covered phases I and II of proposed work but excluded any reference to phase III. The work was described as further masonry work and replacement of the existing roofing system. No contract for the "phase III" work referred to in the second contract was submitted to the DHCR. Landlord also submitted copies of checks paid to the contractor in 2003 and 2004 for "extras to contract," but submitted no change orders or contract amendments. Landlord's documents showed that the work was done in distinct phases under separate agreements. There was no proof that the entire scope of work performed was initially planned as a single unified project. There also was more than 15 months between the last payment for work done under the second contract and the first payment for the later additional work.

310 West End Avenue: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. UC430057RO (5/25/12) [3-pg. doc.]