Piecemeal Facade Work Didn't Qualify as MCI

(Decision submitted by Jon Lilienthal of the Manhattan law firm of Collins, Dobkin & Miller, LLP, who represented the tenants.)

Landlord, the holder of unsold shares to 50 apartments in a cooperative building, applied for MCI rent increases based on exterior restoration work. The DHCR ruled against landlord, finding that the work was done on a piecemeal basis. Landlord then filed an Article 78 court appeal, claiming that the DHCR's decision was arbitrary and unreasonable. The court ruled against landlord. The work performed consisted primarily of pointing, waterproofing, and masonry work. Landlord's documentation showed that the work was limited in scope, consisted of piecemeal repairs, and wasn't done under a consecutively timed unified plan completed within a reasonable time. Instead, the work was done as two separate projects for separate purposes. The first project was designed to address water leakage, and the second was to comply with Local Law 11. 

310 East 46 LLC v. DHCR: Index No. 100163/2014 (Sup. Ct. NY; 1/12/15; Schlesinger, J) [10-pg. doc.]