MCI Rent Increase for Partial Roof Replacement Disallowed

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on exterior restoration and installation of a new roof, along with related architect's fees and sidewalk shed. The DRA ruled for landlord.

Tenants appealed for a number of reasons and won, in part. The DHCR ruled that a DHCR inspection wasn't required in this case since inspections were mandatory and the DHCR had the discretion to rule on an MCI application based on the existing record. An engineer's report submitted by tenants stated that there were areas where additional pointing, waterproofing, lintel replacement, and roof flashing could have been performed. But landlord's responding architect's report stated that, when the work was done, it was done as needed to prevent weather infiltration. The tenants' report documented damaged areas of interior walls and ceilings but contained no specific findings that the damage was the result of active leakage as opposed to old damage. Landlord's report found no active leakage.

The DHCR agreed with tenants that no rent increase was warranted for roof work since the entire roof system wasn't replaced, so this cost was disallowed. The DHCR also agreed to disallow a portion of the cost approved for a sidewalk shed for the extended period following shed installation in August 2007 but before the MCI work commenced in February 2009. The monthly per-room MCI increase was reduced from $24.70 to $22.90. And while certain provisions of HSTPA didn't apply to tenant's pending PAR, the amended Rent Stabilization Law provisions on MCI collectability did apply to the MCI rent increases here.

London Terrace Tenants Association: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. EQ430055RT (9/11/20) [4-pg. doc.]