MCI Increase Granted for New Roof, Pointing, and Exterior Restoration

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on installation of a new roof, pointing, and exterior restoration. The DRA ruled for landlord, and tenants appealed. They claimed that the roof wasn't installed in a workmanlike manner, that the roof continued to leak and remained defective, and that landlord failed to replace the entire roof. They also disputed the increase granted for ancillary lintel replacement, caulking, waterproofing, and stucco work, and claimed that there were open hazardous and immediately hazardous violations at the building.

The DHCR ruled against tenants. Landlord showed that the entire square footage of the roof was replaced, tenants hadn't filed any roof-related service reduction complaints, pointing and waterproofing only had to be done as necessary, and the ancillary work was done when the MCI work was done and therefore qualified as MCIs. Finally, B and C violations placed on the building after the MCI application had been filed also had been removed by the time that the DRA granted landlord's application.

Various Tenants of 295 Maple Street: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. JS210013RT (3/28/24)[4-pg. document]