Periodic Roof Work Doesn't Qualify

January 1, 1999

LVT Number: 12937

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on new roofs installed on various adjoining buildings. The DRA ruled against landlord, finding that the work was piecemeal and wasn't completed within a reasonable period of time. Landlord appealed and lost. The work in question had been done on a periodic basis over 17-months. Landlord's contractor had restored or replaced sections of the roofs in no apparent order and without any indication that the work was done as a single project. So the work didn't qualify as an MCI.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on new roofs installed on various adjoining buildings. The DRA ruled against landlord, finding that the work was piecemeal and wasn't completed within a reasonable period of time. Landlord appealed and lost. The work in question had been done on a periodic basis over 17-months. Landlord's contractor had restored or replaced sections of the roofs in no apparent order and without any indication that the work was done as a single project. So the work didn't qualify as an MCI.

Executive Towers at Lido: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. MD710109RO (11/13/98) [4-pg. doc.]

Downloads

MD710109RO.pdf213.93 KB

Topics

More like this