Piecemeal Facade Work Didn't Qualify as MCI

(Decision submitted by David Hershey-Webb of the law firm of Himmelstein, McConnell, Gribben, Donoghue & Joseph, attorneys for the tenants.)

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on exterior and architectural restoration work. The DRA ruled against landlord, finding that the work was done on a piecemeal basis. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord claimed that the work was done in three phases as part of a single project. Phase I was done to address an emergency condition at the building, Phase 2 consisted of the bulk of the work performed as soon as weather permitted, and Phase 3 was done to repair leaks resulting from the Phase 2 work. The work was all done by the same contractor under three consecutive contractors, starting in December 2001 and ending in November 2004. The DHCR found that the work done under the three separate contracts was done intermittently as separate projects with extended gaps between contracts. Landlord didn't show that it was its intent at the outset to perform all the work in a unified manner. The work was done piecemeal and didn't qualify as an MCI.

Ed Tristram Associates, Inc.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. WI430028RO (9/5/13) [2-pg. doc.]