MCI Increases Granted for Stuyvesant Town Roof Installations

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes at its building complex based on the installation of new roofs with related insulation, doors, bulkhead pointing/wall repair, and asbestos removal. The DRA ruled for landlord and approved the rent increases. Tenants appealed and lost. Tenants claimed that the asbestos removal shouldn't be included in the MCI, that landlord's itemization of the masonry, coping, door, and bulkhead work done was insufficient, that landlord failed to submit affirmations from subcontractors, and that certain drawings, specifications, and invoices weren't attached to the submitted contract. Tenants of two buildings also claimed that there was roof damage resulting from an explosion.

The DHCR found that the DRA's decision was correct. The asbestos removal was properly included in the MCI as necessary work performed in connection with and directly related to the qualifying roof installations. Whether the asbestos work was done in compliance with DEP requirements wasn't a question for DHCR review. Landlord had submitted forms filed with DEP stating that the work was "not an asbestos project." The application otherwise was detailed enough. It included a Contractor Affirmation, and there was no requirement to submit affirmations from subcontractors. The submitted contractor included a statement of General Conditions. Drawings, other than the submitted bulkhead drawings, specifications, and invoices weren't needed. Landlord's cancelled checks also proved total payment for the roof work complex-wide. It wasn't necessary to apportion the payments by building. The MCI increase for buildings affected by the explosion also was properly reduced by the amount of insurance proceeds landlord received after the explosion.

Stuyvesant Town/Peter Cooper Village: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket Nos. WD410004RT et al. (8/29/14) [2-pg. doc.]